@jaydaley just replying to your comment in the other thread as I think there is an impact here to think about (and we've refocused our discussion here around impacts).

To quote @jaydaley from another thread:

"Cam - From this page: https://www.ict.govt.nz/guidance-and-resources/open-government/new-zealand-data-and-information-management-principles/ I see no mention in the NZDIMP of specific NZ laws such as the Privacy Act. Am I looking at the right thing?"

NZDIMP mentions "... Official Information Act or other government policy" so while not explicit, you could interpret this to include privacy concerns under the Privacy Act

Further down the page it also makes references to "Complementary Documents" which includes the Privacy Act among others explicitly.

The impact I see here is if the ODC became a core set of principles for NZ, how might we express the interconnectedness with the existing legislation in the New Zealand context? I feel like there would need to be some work around a "New Zealand layer" of interpretation that would be part of implementing the ODC. What might that look like?

I think this is similar to the impact raised by @aaronmcglinchy in some of the other threads.

Interestingly, the Open Data Charter has some information around the adoption process http://opendatacharter.net/adopt-the-charter/

Would be great to hear your thoughts and explore this further.

Thanks @camfindlay1. The applications of various laws to this space apply regardless of whether or not the principles/charter reference those so no specific reference is necessary.

The main purpose then in referencing other laws is to inform/remind those people in agencies and the public who are involved in this area that those laws apply. If it's felt sufficiently important then that can done inside the principles/charter as has been done with the OIA in NZDIMP or it can be done outside it as with the 'Complementary Documents' section to that web page. Personally I think there are too many to reference them inside the principles/charter and that reduces the benefit of a globally standard charter.

I would recommend exactly what the ODC recommends on the link you pointed to - that there is a statement of adoption of the ODC that contains the localisation necessary.

As someone from outside Gov't who has not had a stake in developing NZDIMP I am struggling to see why this level of debate on adopting the ODC is needed.

The ODC should be seen for what it is - a more modern set of principles, agreed at a global level and primarily focused on how citizens will use the data. Contrast this with NZDIMP

• While the NZDIMP are only a couple of years older than the ODC there has been a significant shift in areas such as data being "released free of charge" and being made "interoperable" that NZDIMP does not capture. Even without the ODC there would be a clear case for a major update to the NZDIMP but with the ODC one has to question if that is needed when a more modern path already exists.

• While the NZDIMP were ahead of their time and includes some elements that are not in ODC, we are never going to have the perfect world where a global standard reflects all of our local contribution. The benefits of a global standard are clear - the best practice, tools, policies, etc developed in other countries can be imported and we can export our best practice, tools, policies, etc.

• The NZDIMP is focused on agencies and what they should be doing and why, whereas the ODC is described as a set of expectations that citizens can have of the data. This is a crucial difference and one where the ODC takes a far better approach than the NZDIMP.

Sorry if this sounds dismissive of the excellent work undertaken but - I feel that this decision is a bit of a distraction from real progress and the ODC should just replace the NZDIMP and then we can move on.