Versie van 26 feb 2015 om 08:23

Cost-Benefit Analysis (in the context of the ECI Regulation)

Minutes of the interview with Reinder Rustema ‘Petities.nl’ by Celine Monteiro for Kurt Salmon

Comparative analysis

The comparative analysis aims to identify the main advantages and disadvantages of existing solutions (from European Institutions), citizens' initiative or e-petition solutions already used at national or local level and a sample of market solutions.

Petities.nl ePetitions system

Introductory comments (1): The interviewee is very familiar with the European Citizens’ Initiative (ECI) as he attended all the ECI-related events that were organised in Brussels and was even part of one ECI organisers’ committee (Let Me Vote). Furthermore the interviewee used to collaborate with Mr. Carsten Berg (ECI Campaign) and Xavier Dutoit (Tech To The People) in order to develop a software model that could overcome the obstacles of the ECI Regulation and related Commission Implementing Regulation N°1179/2011.

As of today, Xavier Dutoit is still working with Campact (Germany) on an ECI software project that aims at working around the existing ECI Regulation. A prototype was developed and used by the non-official ECI ‘Stop TTIP’. Now it aims at being used with an official ECI so as to be certified and become an official alternative solution to the OCS developed by the European Commission. On his side, the interviewee prefers to wait until the requirements of the Regulation are revised and hopefully become less strict, complex and costly to implement, before adapting his existing software to the ECI. The interviewee indeed highlighted that the current requirements represent a major barrier for software providers to develop new software.

1. What was/were your main driver(s) for creating the Petities.nl ePetitions system?

In 2004, a public competition was launched in the Netherlands by the Advisory Council for Science and Technology Policy (AWT) in order to stimulate innovation in the public sector. The interviewee participated and was awarded for his ePetition website. Authorities indeed recognised the potential of his solution as it aimed at creating an interface enabling a two-way dialogue between citizens and government while connecting them both online and offline (driver). While in most ePetition solutions the direction is one way, from citizens towards the government, here the government would also be able to provide answers back to citizens. Petities.nl thus started in 2004 as a prototype website funded by the Dutch government (facilitator). Following a first update in 2005, a complete new version of the software was released in 2009, again funded by the Dutch Government. In October 2014, the interviewee received additional funding from the Dutch Government (30 000 EUR) to further improve the 2009 version, which is planned to be released in the course of 2015.

The new version of the software will include two main improvements:

• The different levels of the government are so far not well aware of all the possibilities that the software can provide, in particular the ability to communicate directly with citizens. The new version thus aims at making interactions easier and smoother.
• The current version of the software is based on voluntary activities and does not generate any income. The 2015 version will be used as a business model. The interviewee would thus like to implement a crowdfunding functionality, to facilitate the funding of the different ePetition causes, and take a small fee out of the funding raised.

With regards to the latter functionality, the interviewee mentioned that, as petitions are not as restricted as citizens’ initiatives, many possibilities, e.g. related to public actions, campaigning and lobbying can be explored. These possibilities are however not possible in the current state of the ECI, way too restrictive.

Additional comments: two major criticisms were formulated by the interviewee with regards to the ECI. (i) While ePetitions enable citizens to create a public debate and the national political parties to react upon it (open form), the field of application of an ECI is so restrictive that the European Commission can just refuse an initiative, based on formal ground, if the latter is not welcome. (ii) Another fundamental error of the ECI, and of some ePetitions solutions such as in the United States ‘We the People’ (https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/) or in the United Kingdom (http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/), is that they are handled by authorities; whereas petitions should be in the hands of citizens as they aim, by definition, at fighting against authorities. According to the interviewee, authorities cannot be trusted with citizens’ personal data when it comes to petitions. It is thus an issue for him to see that ECI online collection systems are now offered to be hosted on the European Commission platform. Technically speaking, it would be very easy to put hosting facilities in the hands of citizens, however due to the high restrictions of the current ECI Regulation this becomes impossible.

2. Is the system built based on an existing online collection system/ existing components?

No, the system was built from scratch. As of today there has been four generations of software and the fifth one is in progress.

3. Please describe the certification process in place to certify Petities.nl ePetitions system.

Certification is only required for the ECI. As petities.nl only collects statements of support (signatures) for ePetitions conducted at national or local level, the software does not need any certification. Having said that, the interviewee stated that certification is a major obstacle for innovation and improvements of software. As after each improvement performed, the software would require a new certification, the capacity for a provider to innovate becomes limited. A central system that anyone could embed into any existing platform should be made possible by the European Commission, for example by funding contributions to the open source code base and organising hackathons. At least a few competing certified centralised market solutions for embedding should be out there to facilitate the ECIs so the initiators can still perform improvements on their campaign websites. Additional comments: The interviewee stressed on ‘a few competing market solutions’ because, based on the current landscape of activists and their campaigning tools, solutions providers are often ideologically motivated. Rather than offering a tool to everyone, they may refuse to host certain ECIs if these do not support their ideas. A monopolistic solution provider may thus not be very democratic. Following this reasoning, keeping the technical and licensing requirements as such would create inequalities between citizens: the technology will indeed be in the hands of ideologically motivated service providers only as there is not really a profitable market for offering certified OCS-services.

4. What are the costs for the certification and who bears these costs? Certification costs for the ECI are extremely high, in the interviewee’s opinion, and the fact that the certification of the software developed by the Commission is paid by the Commission creates an undesirable monopolistic structure.

5. Please describe the online collection process as set by Petities.nl ePetitions system. The aim of ePetitions system is to collect as little personal information as possible. For this purpose, a two-step approach was adopted. 1. An identifier (e.g. name, surname, initials), city of residence and email address are requested to be filled-in on the website, before clicking on the ‘Sign’ button. 2. The signatory then receives a confirmation email including a unique hyperlink. The signatory will need to click on that hyperlink to confirm that he/she is the person that they claim they are and that they agree with the petition text. Only then the support is counted. The interviewee added that the signatory also has the option to invite friends signing the ePetition. According to the interviewee, when it comes to ePetitions, it requires too much effort for people to use someone else’s name or email address to sign several statements of support and scale up the ePetitions. It would indeed be more powerful to invite friends and use network effect. To start an ePetition, the petitioner needs to write a short text describing the purpose of the ePetition and submit it on the website. The moderator can then manually perform some changes on the proposal received (formatting, wording, slogans, subdomain name) before publishing the new ePetitions on the website, announcing it on Twitter and including it in the newsletter of petities.nl. When the moderator receives a complaint from a petitioner, asking to make changes in the ePetition, these changes are implemented in the next few days if they are related to small language errors. In case the requested changes require deeper changes, these can only be implemented if few signatures have been collected, as they may change the ePetition in essence.

6. Is there only one central technical solution that can be used to collect statements of support? Yes

Please explain why this approach was chosen.

There is one central database where all the signatures are injected. It is however possible to integrate the software in other platforms or campaign websites, by installing a widget. The signatures collected via these websites will all feed the central database and a confirmation email is then automatically sent by the system to the signatory. Additional comment: Currently the interviewee intends to make a WordPress template available that could be used by petitioners to create their own petition websites and collect data by themselves. This method however only aims to be used for small petitions, due to the low server capacity.

7. Is the online collection system fully free of charge for the citizens using it?

Yes, the software is based on a freemium model, where the software itself is free to use for citizens; but some related services may be charged (e.g. fee on the funding raised via crowdfunding, fee on the messages sent from governments to citizens).

8. Who has access to Petities.nl ePetitions system, in particular to the data collected through this system? The administrators of the system have access to all the data collected. While the system technicians have a full access to the data, the moderator has a ‘read-only’ access. These are the only stakeholders accessing email addresses. On their side, ePetitioners have access to names, cities and to the comments added by the signatories on a free text field. Signatories always have access to their own data which they can change or shield for publication at any time.

9. Which signatories' personal data are collected via Petities.nl ePetitions system? Please see answer to Q5:

“An identifier (e.g. name, surname, initials), city of residence and email address are requested to be filled-in on the website, before clicking on the ‘Sign’ button.” Additional fields can be defined by the requirements from local and national governments, when it comes to citizens’ initiatives, e.g., data of birth, place of birth. These fields vary depending on the requirements of the governments; they are thus modifiable by the administrator. It should be noticed that these additional fields are only to be filled-in once the confirmation hyperlink is clicked on.

10. How were the above mentioned data fields defined and selected by your organisation to be part of a statement of support? Please see answer to Q9: “Additional fields (optional) can be defined by the requirements from local and national governments, when it comes to citizens’ initiatives, e.g., data of birth, place of birth. These fields vary depending on the requirements of the governments; they are thus modifiable by the administrator.”

Additional comment: In the context of the ECI, it would be difficult for the interviewee to develop an EU version of his system, due to the heterogeneous requirements set across EU Member States. While waiting for these requirements to become more harmonised, the interviewee is thinking about another type of ECI. Collaborating with other national ePetition websites in each Member State (e.g. Open Petition in Germany, Petitie.be in Belgium) and synchronising the data collected in each Member State to feed a unique central database could be a new type of ECI. This would indeed not only enable to overcome the lack of awareness barrier faced by the ECI (as it would be easier to use local existing petition websites to explain to citizens what the ECI is rather than directing them to centralised ECI software) but also to adapt to the specificities of each Member State (e.g., language).

11. What is the percentage of citizens who submit their statement of support after having accessed the form? Statistical data are not yet collected by Petities.nl; however it might be implemented in the new version. Implementing such statistical analysis tools is very expensive and, taking into account the organisation’s limited budget resources, not a priority compared to other improvements requested by users. Based on his experience with the system, the interviewee however stated that most of the users complete the ePetitions straight away as there is little information (name, city of residence and email) to fill-in the first step of the process. The additional fields requested by local and national governments are only to be filled-in once the confirmation hyperlink is clicked on. Using this method (cognitive dissonance) ensures a lower abandon rate in the online collection process. In the 2015 version, reminders aims to be sent to the signatories having started signing the ePetition but never finished, as there are up to 30% of signatories who never click on the confirmation link and thus do not complete the full signing process. In many cases this is due to an email address that is not correctly spelt.

Additional comment: It is possible for signatories not to display their information on the website: while filling-in their information, they just need to keep the default setting as such (set to make information invisible). It is also possible to withdraw a signature by sending an email to the website’s administrator and moderator. The interviewee however highlighted that this happens ten times per year maximum.

12. Have you received questions from (potential) signatories revealing concerns as regards the protection or the use of their personal data?

No

Please comment on your answer. Data protection rules are compliant with the Dutch Personal Data protection law, as clearly stated in a dedicated page of the website and in each confirmation e-mail.

13. What is the percentage of signatories who do not agree with the publication of their personal data (e.g. first name, surname, postcode, city)? As mentioned in the answer to Q11, it is possible for signatories not to display their information on the website: while filling-in their information, they just need to keep the default setting as such (set to make information invisible). The decision to keep data invisible is strongly linked to the sensitivity of the ePetition subject.

Additional comment: The post code in the Netherlands is a very sensitive piece of information as it would be sufficient to identify a complete address (post code related to small areas of around 20 houses).

Open source software

14. Can Petities.nl ePetitions system be integrated with campaigning tools? Yes

Please explain how it is technically implemented.

Please see answer to Q6: “It is […] possible to integrate the software in other platforms or campaign websites, by installing a widget. The signatures collected via these websites will all feed the central database and a confirmation email is then automatically sent by the system to the signatory.”

15. Can Petities.nl ePetitions system be integrated with social media? Yes

Please explain how it is technically implemented.

As for the campaigning website, a widget can be installed on any social media. However it is barely used: people rather put the ePetition hyperlink on their Facebook profile or use the social media sharing functionality available on the ePetition website page.

Future improvements will be performed in this regards as many of the signatories visiting the ePetition website are coming from social media directly. A mobile version of the ePetition system will also be available in 2015.

16. Can Petities.nl ePetitions system be integrated with a national/local database of citizens as a way of verifying the signatures? Yes

Please explain how it is technically implemented. Petities.nl was in charge of collecting the signatures of the citizens’ initiatives of Utrecht and Amsterdam and to then handle the data in such a format that would enable the civil servants to automatically verify the signatures collected with these included in the database of their register. However, due to low technical skills of the resources (and lack of training) and the small scale of the ePetitions, the authorities ended up performing a manual verification (print-out of the signatures and manual check with these included in the database of their register).

Additional comment: In Utrecht signing the petition with eID was made possible through the local government. However access to the data collected through eID being only available to the government and not to third parties, all the data collected had to be sent to the Government and then back to the petitioners. This raises a philosophical issue when it comes to sensitive ePetitions against the government, as the latter could theoretically hide some of the data collected. The interviewee stressed that all petitions and related data collected should remain in the hands of the petitioner in the first place.

17. Does Petities.nl ePetitions system enable to combine both paper-based and online collection of signatures?

No, at the end of the data collection phase, signatures are submitted to the authorities including both paper-based and online signatures as two different files.

Please explain why. Most authorities in the Netherlands, including the national parliament, receive petitions during a short ceremony where citizens can explain the petition and answer questions from politicians receiving it. The printed list of signatories from petities.nl can easily (often on the spot) be merged with signatures collected on paper only. In the case of citizens’ initiatives there is both a ceremony and later the same week a practical exchange between civil servants and the initiator for the actual digital and physical signatories.

18. Does Petities.nl ePetitions system enable to sign a petition using an advanced electronic signature/ e-ID?

Yes

Please explain how it is technically implemented.

The interviewee is also in contact with the Dutch government to develop an eID which could be used by citizens to perform transactions online, as it already exists for some companies.

19. In your opinion, what are the main advantages of Petities.nl ePetitions system?

If possible, please compare these with the software developed by the European Commission in the context of the European Citizens’ Initiative.

The main advantages of the Petities.nl system, as identified by the interviewee are the following:

• Collection of as little information as possible, via a two-step approach;
• User-friendliness;
• People remain owner of their data and are free to modify them at any time of the process.

20. In your opinion, what are the main disadvantages of Petities.nl ePetitions system?

If possible, please compare these with the software developed by the European Commission in the context of the European Citizens’ Initiative.

The main disadvantages of the Petities.nl system, as identified by the interviewee are the following:

• Not multilingual but only available in Dutch (even though this is planned to be implemented in the future);
• Collaboration with governments could be optimised (communication from governments to citizens).

21. Please specify which of the following requirements are applicable to Petities.nl ePetitions system.

For these requirements that are applicable, please specify the extent to which the software complies with them.

The interviewee mentioned that in theory the system complies with all the below mentioned standards, however it is not certified due to the related certification cost. In the context of the ECI, collecting less data would remove the need for such high security requirements and relieve organisers from their liability.

Requirements Not Applicable Comment

ISO/IEC 27001 “Information technology - Security techniques - Information security management systems – Requirements”

Applicable

ISO/IEC 27002 “Information technology - Security techniques - Code of practice for information security management”

Applicable

Standard of Good Practice for Information Security (including security management, end-user environment, critical business application, systems development, networks, computer installations)

Applicable

Application security against:

1. Injection flaws (e.g. SQL, LDAP, Xpath queries, OS commands or programme arguments)
2. Cross-site scripting (XSS)
3. Broken Authentication and Session Management (e.g. use of credentials, encryption, session IDs time-out, TLS)
4. Insecure Direct Object References exploitation
5. Cross-Site Request Forgery Flaw
6. Security Misconfiguration exploitation (i.e. secure configuration defined and deployed for the application, frameworks, application server, web server, database server, and platform).
7. Insecure Cryptographic Storage exploitation (i.e. protection of the sensitive data, such as personal data or authentication credentials with appropriate encryption or hashing.
8. Failure to Restrict URL Access based on the user access levels and permissions
9. Insufficient Transport Layer exploitation (need to authenticate, encrypt, and protect the confidentiality and integrity of sensitive network traffic)
10. Invalidated Redirects and Forwards exploitation

Applicable

22. To what extent does Petities.nl ePetitions system comply with the following requirements?

For these requirements that are applicable, please specify the extent to which the software complies with them.

Requirements Applicable Not Applicable Comment

Availability

Good availability, but not formally guaranteed by any Service Level Agreements (SLAs). Within the last years, the server has only been exceptionally slow for 30 minutes in October 2013, as an ePetition was open to the whole country and thus received (too) many concurrent requests.

Integrity

Data can only be changed by signatories themselves. Nobody has access to the data except the interviewee who has a ‘read-only’ access anyway and a few technicians.

Confidentiality

Confidentiality clauses are signed with all the stakeholders involved in the system.

Identification, authentication and authorisation

Unique link to authenticate signatories. Moreover, only possible to connect with both the public and private key owned by the interviewee.

Data protection

Compliant with the Dutch Data Protection law.

Performance (in volume or time)

Fast performance (over capacity)

Within the last years, the server has only been exceptionally slow for 30 minutes in October 2013, as an ePetition was open to the whole country and thus received (too) many concurrent requests.

Scalability (upscaling/ downscaling in volume)

Not applicable

Issue in case the software goes Europe wide (low server capacity to respond to the amount of concurrent requests).

Accessibility

Accessible for visually impaired people (won a price in 2009).

Multilingual

Not applicable

Not yet, but aims to be translated into French and English at least.

Portability (ease to adapt to different environments)

Widget enabling to integrate the software in other websites. The software is also portable to other Member States (e.g. Belgium).

Testability

Staging website before going online. Developments are performed on the existing code to ensure that if it breaks it remains possible to go back to the previous version. Documentation supporting the development and/or support activities of the system

Integrated into the code and into the versioning system. A Wiki describing the functionalities of the software is also available for non-technical people (http://handboek.petities.nl/wiki/Hoofdpagina) Design flexibility (e.g. customisation of the interface, integration with campaigning tools)

Possibility to add logos, pictures, free links, twitter box, news, etc. Licensing requirements

When the interviewee is sure that the other citizen groups willing to run a website are also willing to stick to offering a neutral platform, then they can get the code. Other: Usability

Usability is fundamental for the website; all implementations are performed based on email requests from people. • Please state the yearly costs (in Euros or person days) related to Petities.nl ePetitions system for your organisation since 2010. Please drill down the costs. Type of costs 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Infrastructure costs (in Euros or person days per year):

Development costs (in Euros or person days per year):

Maintenance costs (in Euros or person days per year):

Support costs (in Euros or person days per year):

Training costs (in Euros or person days per year):

Please comment on your answer. Petities.nl has been sponsored by the Dutch government between 2010 and 2015. The only costs they had are related to the servers (change every 3 years for EUR 3,000). Maintenance is sponsored, training not applicable as the team is made of volunteers learning by themselves and hosting are provided for free to the organisation (but would be assessed at EUR 4,000 per year). • Have you ever been interested in developing software for the ECI (i.e. compliant with the ECI Regulation and Commission Implementing Regulation 1179/2011)?

Yes, but only once the requirements will have been reviewed and lowered.
No
I don’t know / No opinion

• • • The following questions are only applicable if ‘Yes’ was answered to Q24. ***

24a. Please explain the reasons why you were interested in developing software for the ECI. The following reasons were mentioned by the interviewee: • New challenge to overcome by going at EU level; • Strong beliefs in petitioning, as it has a great potential for closing the gap between citizens the governments (personal stake) and representing democracy. • Other reasons are mentioned in the Chapter 9 of “An ECI that works”. 24b. Please explain the reasons why it did not happen. Requirements are too high as of now to be fulfilled by the organisation.

� Web interface • Is the Web interface connected to the online collection software used to collect statements of support?

Yes, both solutions run on the same server (integrated)
No
Don’t know/ No opinion 

Please explain the type of connection between the two solutions. The interviewee specified that the interface is directly connected to the software and both related to the same database. The interviewee pointed out that it would be very difficult to separate both elements. Additional comments: In the current version of the Commission software, the web interface is connected to the database in a way that is told to be as secure as in the banking industry. While this high-level security and design of the web interface is indeed useful in the banking sector, for petitions involving millions of users it is definitely not the best idea. • In your view, what are the main advantages/ disadvantages of having the ePetition interface connected to the online collection software? In the interviewee’s opinion, both solutions are meant to be connected together, one following the other. There is thus no disadvantage of having the ePetition interface connected to the online collection software. • In your view, what are the main advantages/ disadvantages of having the ePetition interface as a separate solution from the online collection software? The interviewee specified that having the ePetition interface as a separate solution from the online collection software could be implemented as a “work around” based on the existing requirements. For example, a petition could be run on a server in the Netherlands and then people could have different interfaces (integration of the software into different campaign websites). This would be a way to centralise a certified storage of statements of support. • Are there any improvements planned on the web interface?

Yes 
No
Don’t know/ No opinion 

Please specify the improvements that are planned on the web interface. The interviewee specified that two improvements are planned on Petities.nl: first, to make the web interface more ‘visual’ and secondly, to develop a mobile version of the website to make ePetitions available in a correct format for smartphones and tablets. The interviewee specified that making the interface usable on all devices (laptops, smartphones and tablets) is crucial nowadays.

• In your view, are there any additional improvements that should be performed on the web interface?

Yes
No
Don’t know/ No opinion 

Please specify the additional improvements that should be performed, from your point of view.

The following additional improvements should be performed, from the interviewee’s point of view: • Inviting other signatories by uploading address book; • Reducing fall-out by detailed feedback on input of e-mail address; • Recruiting volunteers for campaigns when confirming signature with questionnaire about unique skills/expertise of signatory; • Developing a multilingual web interface; • Implementing a search-function to find and tag befriended signatories. • Please specify which of the following requirements are applicable to the web interface developed for Petities.nl ePetitions system? For these requirements that are applicable, please specify the extent to which the interface complies with them. Please see Table included in Q22. Requirements Applicable Not Applicable Comment Reusability

The interface was reused for the Belgium website. However the modifications performed on the initial interface (e.g. different logo, rewriting of all the pages and translation to Flemish) cost thousands of euros. Availability

Good availability, but not formally guaranteed by any Service Level Agreements (SLAs). Within the last years, the server has only been exceptionally slow for 30 minutes in October 2013, as an ePetition was open to the whole country and thus received (too) many concurrent requests. Integrity

Data can only be changed by signatories themselves. Nobody has access to the data except the interviewee who has a ‘read-only’ access anyway and a few technicians. Confidentiality

Confidentiality clauses are signed with all the stakeholders involved in the system. Identification, authentication and authorisation (including verification mechanism such as captcha)

Unique link to authenticate signatories. Moreover, only possible to connect with both the public and private key owned by the interviewee. Security

Within a day after the updates are published to database or software components used, they are implemented. Data protection

Compliant with the Dutch Data Protection law. Performance (in volume or time)

Fast performance (over capacity) Within the last years, the server has only been exceptionally slow for 30 minutes in October 2013, as an ePetition was open to the whole country and thus received (too) many concurrent requests. Scalability (upscaling/ downscaling in volume)

Issue in case the software goes Europe wide (low server capacity to respond to the amount of concurrent requests). Accessibility

Accessible for visually impaired people (won a price in 2009). Multilingual

Not yet, but aims to be translated into French and English at least. Portability (ease to adapt to different environments)

Widget enabling to integrate the software in other websites. The software is also portable to other Member States (e.g. Belgium). Testability

Staging website before going online. Developments are performed on the existing code to ensure that if it breaks it remains possible to go back to the previous version. Documentation supporting the development and/or support activities of the system

Integrated into the code and into the versioning system. A Wiki describing the functionalities of the software is also available for non-technical people (http://handboek.petities.nl/wiki/Hoofdpagina) Design flexibility (e.g. customisation of the interface, integration with campaigning tools)

Possibility to add logos, pictures, free links, twitter box, news, etc. Licensing requirements

When the interviewee is sure that the other citizen groups willing to run a website are also willing to stick to offering a neutral platform, then they can get the code. Other:

Usability is fundamental for the website; all implementations are performed based on email requests from people. • Please state the costs (in Euros or person days) related to the development of the system web interface, for your organisation. Please drill down the costs. The interviewee specified that the current interface (2009) cost around 12 000 EUR and the next version (2015) would be 24 000 EUR.

• What is the price (in Euros) that your organisation invoices (and to whom) for developing the ePetition system web interface? Please drill down the price. While the 2009 version was developed by a web Design Company, the 2015 version will be managed by the interviewee himself and freelance developers for some parts. The interviewee would like to establish trust between his organisation and the freelance developers, to end-up with a community of developers contributing to the open source code and dedicated to make it better. In the context of the ECI, the interviewee observes that lots of requests and demands to improve the OCS are posted on Joinup. However, the open source community seems difficult to build and the process of hiring someone to solve the issues posted or perform the improvements requested very slow and implying too many requirements. Trust is fundamental here.

Hosting • In your opinion what are the main advantages of a public hosting compared to a private hosting? The main advantages of a public hosting compared to a private hosting is that the service is provided free of charge for ECI organisers and their technical responsibility can be shifted, in the case of the ECI, to the European Commission. However, according to the interviewee, the Commission should not host the ECI online collection systems but rather help organisers “paying part of the bill” related to the hosting. In other words, citizens should be free to choose their own hosting with the only constraint that they must apply the related relevant local data protection laws. • In your opinion what are the main disadvantages of a public hosting compared to a private hosting? Please see answer to Q33: “The main advantages of a public hosting compared to a private hosting is that the service is provided free of charge for ECI organisers and their technical responsibility can be shifted, in the case of the ECI, to the European Commission. However, according to the interviewee, the Commission should not host the ECI online collection systems but rather help organisers “paying part of the bill” related to the hosting. In other words, citizens should be free to choose their own hosting with the only constraint that they must apply the related relevant local data protection laws.” • Do you provide hosting services (including support) with regards to Petities.nl ePetitions system?

Yes
No
Don’t know/ No opinion

In the whole of the Netherlands, the interviewee only identified (in 2012) the two following hosting providers being ISO/IEC/27001 and ISO/IEC/27002 certified: • https://www.asp4all.nl/over-asp4all/profiel/iso27001: ASP4all is since 2004 the first Dutch hosting provider to be ISO/IEC 27001 certified”. • https://www.sentia.nl/over-sentia/iso-27001: Sentia is ISO 27001 certified since 2012. Since then more have emerged, although none of the mainstream hosting providers with consumers and SMEs as clients and appropriate marketing seem to be certified. The two abovementioned are the first with the national government as client. This certification is indeed a way to win government or banks as clients.

Based on his experience, the interviewee added that in most cases being ISO/IEC/27001 or ISO/IEC/27002 compliant is not required for companies; it is indeed a niche market. Therefore, the interviewee struggles to understand why these standards are part of the technical requirements imposed by the ECI Regulation and related Commission Implementing Regulation N°1179/2011. While these standards are in theory the most secured and reliable; in practice they only raise a barrier for ECI organisers.

• Is the data collected hosted on a server physically located in an EU Member State?

Yes 
No
Don’t know/ No opinion 

Please specify the EU Member State where the server is physically located. The Netherlands.

• Does each petition collecting support use a dedicated server?

Yes 
No
Don’t know/ No opinion 

Please comment on your answer. Using a dedicated server is a possible “work around” solution in case the ECI Regulation and related Commission Implementing Regulation N°1179/2011 do not change. Following his discussions with the Dutch authorities, one machine having different configurations on it may be certified as a “dedicated server” by the latter authorities. While this option is not the best way to run a platform, having actual dedicated servers for each ePetition would not be feasible. In the case of Petities.nl the data collected for the 5000 ePetitions having been or currently being collecting are stored in the same database and it would be problematic to do it differently. While from the European Commission’s perspective, having a dedicated secure server for each petition is the perfect ultimate security solution, ECI organisers want to jump directly to an already working server and be able to modify the existing software. �

• Please specify which of the following requirements are applicable to the current hosting platform. For these requirements that are applicable, please specify the extent to which the hosting platform complies with them. The interviewee specified that Petities.nl do not fit to these questions because the system is designed in a completely different way. Requirements Applicable Not Applicable Comment ISO/IEC 27001 “Information technology - Security techniques - Information security management systems – Requirements”

ISO/IEC 27002 “Information technology - Security techniques - Code of practice for information security management”

Standard of Good Practice for Information Security (including security management, end-user environment, critical business application, systems development, networks, computer installations)

Database security and data integrity:

One system shares the credentials but these are not shared with external systems (e.g. entities). Petitioners have neither access to other petitions’ database nor to the server. • Data, including access and encryption credentials are not shared between different systems.

• The risk that someone authenticates on the database using ‘pass-the-hash’ is mitigated.

Such a solution is not required because only two people access the database. The interviewee has authenticated key with read only access to the database and one technician has full access to it. • Data provided by the signatories are only accessible by them during the session in which they complete the statement of support form and by the database administrator/ organiser thereafter.

People who sign own their personal information and can access it. In the new version, Petities.nl will make visible to the petitioners all information collected from signatories (e.g. IP address). • Administrative credentials, personal data collected from signatories and its backup are secured via strong encryption algorithms.

The database is secure, but it is not encrypted yet. Once the database is accessed, all the data can be read; only the backup database is encrypted. • Signatories’ personal data are only available in the system, including the backup, in strong encrypted format.

Little data is collected (e.g., emails). Information is deleted when it becomes obsolete. • Once the user has entered all required details in the statement of support form, and validates his/her decision to support the initiative, the system either successfully commits all of the form data to the database, or, in case of error, fails by saving no data at all. The system informs the user of the success or failure of his/her request.

The system generates an error message if the address of a signatory of a Citizens Initiative does not comply with Dutch standards. This is a problem for people who are Dutch citizens but do not live currently in The Netherlands. • Up-to-date and continuously patched DBMS.

• Activity logs in place (audit logs can be kept and produced until the data is destroyed)

The software does it automatically. This information is not used at the moment but can be obtained. Infrastructure security:

High security level. • Hosting area access control and audit log.

• Physical protection of backup data against theft or incidental misplacement.

Dedicated server in a cage. • Server installed in a secured rack.

Network security:

Standard • Hosting on an Internet facing server installed on a demilitarised zone (DMZ) and protected by a firewall.

• Updates or patches are installed expediently on the firewall when they become public (and when relevant).

Standard • All inbound and outbound traffic to the server (destined to the online collection system) is inspected by the firewall rules and logged. The firewall rules deny all traffic that is not needed for the secure use and administration of the system.

Standard • Production network segment separated from segments used to host non-production systems (e.g. development and testing).

Standard • Local Area Network security measures in place.

Standard

• Have you ever been interested in hosting ECI online collection systems?

Yes
No
I don’t know / No opinion

• • • The following questions are only applicable if ‘Yes’ was answered to Q39. ***

39a. Please explain the reasons why you were interested in hosting ECI online collection systems on your own servers. The interviewee would like to make a low cost solution available for many ECIs. This however implies the need for numerous dedicated servers (request for sponsoring) while most people are satisfied with hosting in the cloud. 39b. Please explain the reasons why it did not happen. The requirements set, in the ECI Regulation and related Commission Implementing Regulation N°1179/2011, are too high to be fulfilled. 39c. What would be the costs (in euros or person days) that your organisation would invoice to ECI organisers for hosting an online collection system (using the software developed by the Commission or other software)? Between 500-1000 EUR could be charged. Even though these funds can easily be collected from ECI organisers, it would be difficult to compete against a free service provided by the European Commission. The interviewee would still rather lobby against the high barriers set in the ECI Regulation and related Commission Implementing Regulation N°1179/2011, than go for a “work around” solution anyway.

• In your view, what are the main advantages/ disadvantages of having ECI hosted on the Commission platform for ECI organisers? Please see answer to Q33: “The main advantages of a public hosting compared to a private hosting is that the service is provided free of charge for ECI organisers and their technical responsibility can be shifted, in the case of the ECI, to the European Commission.

Additional comments: According to the interviewee, the ECI organisers who have no IT skills could easily be manipulated. In this regards, by being told that a database can easily be stolen making them liable for the data collected, ECI organisers would easily favour the hosting service provided by the European Commission over any private hosting platform. The requirements should be designed in a way that even a personal blogs could be used for petitions (no dedicated server). The only condition should be the datacentre to be physically located in EU Member States.� General comments related to the ECI • In your view, what are the main barriers/difficulties for a software provider to develop software compliant with the ECI Regulation and related Commission Implementing Regulation No 1179/2011? The ECI currently represents a risk for investments. While software providers can be working on an alternative solution to the OCS, despite the high requirements imposed, the ECI Regulation and related Commission Implementing Regulation N°1179/2011 can change in the meantime. The interviewee would thus rather lobby against the high barriers set in the ECI Regulation and related Commission Implementing Regulation N°1179/2011, than go for a “work around” solution. • In your view, what are the main barriers/difficulties for a hosting provider to host ECI's online collection systems while being compliant with the ECI Regulation and related Commission Implementing Regulation No 1179/2011? Again, the main barriers for a hosting provider to host ECI's online collection systems are the requirements set in the ECI Regulation and related Commission Implementing Regulation N°1179/2011, including the ISO standards and the need to host systems on dedicated servers. The European Commission should lower these requirements to make the ECI successful. • In your view, what are the main advantages/ disadvantages of the web interface (so-called official register) developed by the European Commission in the context of the ECI: http://ec.europa.eu/citizens-initiative/public/initiatives/ongoing? As mentioned in Q43, from the interviewee’s perspective, a general “portal” providing an overview of all existing petitions has the first advantage to exist and thus to be used by the minority of stakeholders having an interest in this information, e.g. journalists, scientists, or potential initiators of new petitions, who would like to check what other countries are doing. However, the key priority for ePetition websites is and remains the “interface usability” for the vast majority of citizens. While very few users visit the front page of Petities.nl, where all the available ePetitions are listed, thousands are visiting the website (and signing ePetitions) because they received a link with information about a specific issue that is of their interest and are willing to support a cause. • Please feel free to add any general comments you may have on the online collection in the context of the ECI. Please refer to Chapter 9 of “An ECI that works”

Other online collection systems After a focus on Petities.nl ePetitions system, this section aims at gathering inputs on additional solutions to be part of our analysis. • Are you aware of any other existing citizens' initiative(s) or e-petition solution(s), used at national or European level?

Yes
No
Don’t know/ No opinion

Please specify which ones you consider as possibly relevant for the study. The following solutions were identified by the interviewee as relevant for our study: ePetition systems of the German Bundestag, Belgium (software developed by Petities.nl), Finland, Estonia, Hungary, USA and the Netherlands’ referendum platform. The latter Netherlands’ referendum platform is in contact with democracy NGOs who might be interested in e-petitioning (e.g. contacts with Carsten Berg). • Are you aware of any other software solution(s) that should be considered in our comparative analysis?

Yes
No
Don’t know/ No opinion

[If answered ‘Yes’ to Q46] Please specify which ones you consider as possibly relevant for the study. The following software were identified by the interviewee as relevant for our study: We sign it (La Netscouade), OpenPetition.de, Petities.be, MySociety and Public-i, who market petitioning software in the UK. • We sign it (La Netscouade) – KURT SALMON is in contact with Charles Letaillieur; • OpenPetition.de – Jörg Mitzlaff (email address: joerg@mitzlaff.net); • Petities.be – Bert Penninckx (email address: bert.penninckx@democratie.nu); • MySociety – Tom Steinberg (email address: tom@mysociety.org); • Public-i – Paul Hernanz (email address: paul.hernanz@public-i.info).

� Appendix Specific Privacy Statement With regard to the Interview (further referred to as "consultation") To be carried out in accordance with the “Interview guide for online collection software providers" • Objective In preparation of the report on the implementation of the European Citizens’ Initiative (ECI) Regulation, which is due in April 2015, the European Commission has mandated KURT SALMON to carry out a study consisting of the twofold: • Analysis of the online collection process, as currently in place in the context of the European Citizens' Initiative; • Production of a comparative analysis identifying the main advantages and disadvantages of existing citizens' initiative or e-petition solutions already used at European and national level and other existing market solutions. The objective of this consultation is to receive the views of stakeholders concerned by the topic of the study. The final version of the study, carried out by KURT SALMON, may be potentially published on the Internet, including the views of the stakeholders in an anonymised form. As far as this consultation implies the collection and further processing of personal data, Regulation (EC) 45/2001, of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Union institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data, is applicable. In this context, KURT SALMON is considered to be Processor of the data collected, acting on behalf of and under the responsibility of the Head of Unit SG.C.4 of the European Commission, which is considered as Controller. • What personal information do we collect and through which technical means? Identification Data The personal data collected and further processed is data necessary for the participation in the consultation, such as name/surname/profession/ postal & e-mail addresses/phone number/fax number, of the contributors, including their views on the topics concerned. This data may be used for further contact in case more details regarding collected data are needed. Technical information Your reply and personal data will be collected during an interview. The minutes of this interview will then be submitted to you for review, via email. • Who has access to your information and to whom is it disclosed? The access to all personal data as well as all information collected in the context of this consultation is only granted through User Id/Password to a defined population of users, without prejudice to a possible transmission to the bodies in charge of a monitoring or inspection task in accordance with Union legislation. The users concerned are members of the SG C4 Unit organising the consultation, the DIGIT B 6 Unit responsible for the study contract, any other Commission officials concerned by the topic and KURT SALMON, the subcontractor. No personal data is transmitted to parties which are outside the recipients and the legal framework mentioned. The European Commission will not share personal data with third parties for direct marketing purposes. • How do we protect and safeguard your information? The collected personal data and all information related to the above mentioned consultation is stored on a computer of the external contractor, acting as processor, who has to guarantee the data protection and confidentiality required by the Regulation (EC) 45/2001. • How can you verify, modify or delete your information? In case you want to verify which personal data is stored on your behalf by the responsible controller, have it modified, corrected or deleted, please contact the Controller by using the Contact Information below and by explicitly specifying your request. • How long do we keep your data? Your personal data, collected in the context of the consultation will be kept in a form which permits identification of data subjects for no longer than is necessary for the purposes for which the data were collected. They shall be deleted not later than 5 years since the consultation. In case the data are stored for longer periods for historical, statistical or scientific use they should be kept in anonymous form only.