GODI 2016: Overly penalising registration requirements?


Hi all,

This is a thread about how GODI assesses registration requirements. Currently, GODI gives points to data that is available online without registration. In case that any administrative procedure is put in place. Administrative procedures range from the need to actively request data and user identification, to registrations.

We currently treat all of these procedures equally as access controls. Some say that we would need to treat these “barriers” to use differently. @Lin_Zhaowei started an interesting thread and I would like us to follow-up on this.

Some background: GODI, like other assessments, considers registration a barrier that can deter people from accessing the data. We draw from the International Open Data Charter which states in Principle 3 - Accessible and Usable that governments should “Release data without mandatory registration, allowing users to choose to download data without being required to identify themselves”. As I know other open data assessments such as ODIN follow a similar approach to ours.

I would love to hear other people’s opinions.

Our process of finding and evaluating key datasets

Hi @dannylammerhirt,

Thanks for the background! I presume these principles were written in the context of mainly static datasets, i.e. aggregated tables? I fully agree that registration for access to such datasets is onerous and serves little purpose.




This principle was firstly stated in the Sebastopol Principles and carried on to the latest Open Data Charter Principles. Basically it argues that it should not be required for users to register and identify themselves. I assume this has a normative and technical component to it.

I’m co-chairing the Open Data Charter working group on Measurement and Accountability. This topic is most certainly interesting to discuss further, because I assume currently we unisono agree that registration requirements are not part of open data. I’m cc’ing in @carlos_iglesias_moro who has been co-chairing this group for a longer time. I know others have been discussing that we should assess access-controls (incl. registration, identification etc.) in a more nuanced way.

Maybe Carlos, you have an opinion here?