Key documents

E-voting

. Recommendation Rec (2004)11 on legal,

  operational and technical standards for

  e-voting

. E-voting handbook - implementation of

  e-enabled elections

. Guidelines on certification of e-voting

  systems

. Guidelines on transparency of e-enabled

  elections

. Reports of biennial Reviews 2008 and

  2010

. Council of Europe studies on e-voting

. National developments on e-voting

 

E-democracy

. Recommendation (2009)1 on

  e-democracy and Explanatory

  memorandum

  (PdF version   -  Word version)

. Practical tools to Rec(2009)1

. Glossary of technical terms in the field

  of electronic democracy

 

Internet governance

. Recommendation (2004)15 and

  explanatory memorandum

 

UN WSIS/ IGF

Texts submitted by the Council of Europe

for:

. IGF 2010

. IGF 2009

. IGF 2008

. WSIS 2005

. WSIS 2003

 

Internet literacy

Internet literacy handbook

 

. Highway to democr@cy – the Council of

  Europe and the information society

. Guarding the watchdog – the Council of

  Europe and the media 

DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF DEMOCRACY AND
POLITICAL AFFAIRS

DIRECTORATE OF DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTIONS

Project «GOOD GOVERNANCE IN THE INFORMATION SOCIETY»

CM(2009)9 Addendum 3

23 February 2009

Indicatives Guides
and Glossary

relating to
Recommendation Rec(2009) 1
of the Committee of Ministers to member states
on electronic democracy (e-democracy)

Prepared by
The Council of Europe’s
Ad hoc Committee on E-Democracy (CAHDE)

DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF DEMOCRACY AND
POLITICAL AFFAIRS

DIRECTORATE OF DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTIONS

Project «GOOD GOVERNANCE IN THE INFORMATION SOCIETY»

CAHDE (2009) 1E
(English only/anglais uniquement) Strasbourg, 15 January 2009

Indicative Guide No.1 to Recommendation Rec(2009)… of Committee of Ministers to member states on e-democracy

Generic tools and policies for an electronic democracy

Prepared by the Council of Europe’s Ad Hoc Committee on e-democracy (CAHDE)

Authors:

Robert Krimmer and Manuel J. Kripp, E-voting CC. - Competence Center for Electronic Voting and Participation

in co-operation with
Fernando Mendez, e-Democracy Centre, University of Zurich

Abstract
This description of generic tools and policies for an electronic democracy (e-democracy) is meant to provide an overview on the manifold and diverse opportunities to set up e-democracy. The aim is to provide a guide to all possible stakeholders at all levels for the implementation of a fully supported e-democracy.
For this we generically describe 33 instruments to provision an
e-democracy.

Keywords
E-Democracy
E-Voting
E-Participation
Generic Tools
Generic Policies

Content
Executive Summary 7
I. Generic Tools 13

1. E-Campaigning 13
2. E-Citizen Relationship Management (E-CiRM) 15
3. E-Complaints 17
4. E-Consultation 19
5. E-Consulate / E-Embassy 21
6. E-Democracy Games 23
7. E-Democracy Webcasts 25
8. E-Discussion 27
9. E-Initiative 29
10. E-Journalism 31
11. E-Justice 33
12. E-Legislation 35
13. E-Ombudsman and Audit Institutions 37
14. E-Parliament 39
15. E-Party (external) 41
16. E-Petition 43
17. E-Politician 47
18. E-Spatial Planning (E-Neighbourhood) 49
19. E-Voting 51
20. Grassroots Citizens’ Interactivity (G2C and C2G) 53
21. Information Management Tools 55
22. Participatory Budgeting 57
23. Political Party’s Internal E-Democracy 59
24. Single Governmental Portals 61
25. Social Networking E-Democracy 63
26. Vote Navigator 65

II. Generic Policies 67

27. Combating Digital Illiteracy 67
28. E-Incentives 69
29. E-Inclusion 71
30. E-Training 73
31. Government Interactivity with Citizens' Initiatives (G2C with C2C) 75
32. Overcoming E-Obstacles 77
33. Regulating E-Democracy 79

Appendix: Framework Description 81

Executive Summary
This presentation of generic tools and policies for e-democracy provides an overview on the manifold and diverse opportunities to set up e-democracy. The aim of this paper is to foster knowledge about and to provide a guide for the implementation of a fully supported e-democracy at all levels of government - local, regional, national, inter-/supranational - and in respect of all stakeholders: from public authorities (representative assemblies and administration) to NGOs and single citizens.

Each generic tool or policy is evaluated with the same criteria and structure in order to facilitate the comparison of different tools and policies and to increase the comprehensibility and usability for different users.

The following overview of 33 tools and policies is especially directed to public authorities and other interested stakeholders in electronic democracy. It presents an overview of possible ways and methods of introducing electronic democracy.

The guide provides a comprehensible quick overview about the most common generic tools and policies used for the introduction of electronic democracy. These tools and policies are drawn from research on more than 100 examples of different countries of using electronic means with regard to democracy. This paper is linked to the work and outcome - including on terminology - of the Council of Europe 'Ad hoc Committee on electronic democracy' (CAHDE).^*

Each practice is presented on two pages including a short overview containing the most important facts, like initiators, reasons for initiating, function for democracy, timelines, financing and others. Furthermore each practice is clustered in three core areas of research, each covering certain aspects of the described tools. Each area is further structured in the following way:

- Basis of initiative: initiator, reasons, objectives and embedding in democracy;
- Management: partners, key actors, sustainability and follow-up;
- Other aspects: political support, main achievements.

The clustering regarding the function for democracy is based on the aspects of democracy which are supported more specifically through the implementation of the specific tool or policy: increasing the transparency of the political process; enhancing the direct involvement and participation of citizens; and/or improving the quality of opinion formation by opening new spaces of information and deliberation.

The overall clustering technique facilitates the comparison of the practices amongst each other and establishes an opportunity to deduce implications and pre-requisites for development and implementation.

Instrument	Description	Page
Generic Tools		13
1. E-Campaigning	Engaging in a co-ordinated way, by electronic means, with people and encouraging people to engage with each other in order to mobilise and/or convince individuals in political campaigns to promote causes	13
2. E-Citizen Relationship Management (E-CiRM)	Public authorities personalize especially citizens’ information to provide citizen-customized information and improve the quality of data of public administration about its citizens	15
3. E-Complaints	In particular public authorities using ICTs to provide citizens with means for complaint, conflict resolution and in combination with other initiatives to establish some citizen relationship management	17
4. E-Consultation	Collecting opinions of designated persons or the public at large on a specific policy issue without necessarily mandating the decision maker	19
5. E-Consulate / E-Embassy	The use of electronic means and ICTs to provide services to citizens living or travelling abroad (and aliens) in terms of information, consular support, applications, consultation / participation and e-voting	21
6. E-Democracy Games	Games and simulations developed or implemented by public authorities, NGOs, policy centres or private actors to explain and introduce e-democracy, its processes and tools to citizens, shape the public sphere and foster the knowledge on (e-)democracy	23
7. E-Democracy Webcasts	Live streaming / web casting of legislative / executive / judiciary meetings by public authorities in order to provide citizens and other interested stakeholders with information and transparency	25
8. E-Discussion	Discussions of issues of citizens' concern among citizens, public authorities and others using ICTs and other e-democracy tools in order to foster citizens’ deliberation and participation in democracy	27
9. E-Initiative	Using electronic and Internet tools to establish initiatives by citizens in order to participate in or influence political decision-making and engage in political agenda setting	29
10. E-Journalism	Using electronic and internet tools to publish information and news, report from political (party) events and event blogging by citizens and officials to provide unfiltered information	31
11. E-Justice	Using ICT in the conduct of justice, by all stakeholders of the judiciary, in order to increase efficiency and quality of public service in particular for citizens and business	33

12. E-Legislation	Using ICT for drafting, commenting upon, consulting, structuring, formatting, submitting, amending, voting and publishing of acts of elected assemblies	35
13. E-Ombudsman and Audit Institutions	Internet sites of ombudsman and audit institutions publishing information about public authorities’ compliance with rules and especially providing citizens with a(n anonymous) possibility to issue a complaint electronically, thus establishing enhanced means of control	37
14. E-Parliament	The use of ICT by elected representative assemblies, their members and political and administrative staff, in the conduct of their tasks, actively involving its electorate / citizens	39
15. E-Party (external)	The use of ICTs by political parties and corporations/associations to provide information about their activities, conventions and campaigns as well as participation opportunities online for its members and interested citizens	41
16. E-Petition	Electronic delivery of a protest or recommendation to a democratic institution about a public institution, a law, or to provide the public authorities or representatives with their opinion	43
17. E-Politician	Politicians electronically providing information about themselves, their work, decision-making and voting, and interacting and deliberating with their and others' public authorities as well as citizens (constituents) and the media.	47
18. E-Spatial Planning	Discussion and participation in urban planning in a neighbourhood context initiated by citizens, NGOs and/or public authorities making use of ICTs to foster local participation and find solutions on a local base	49
19. E-Voting	An electronic election or referendum that involves the use of electronic means in at least the casting of the vote, hereby enabling e.g. increasing accessibility for citizens and faster counting	51
20. Grassroots Interactivity C2C, C2G	Citizen initiated e-democracy projects among citizens or between citizens and public authorities to foster engagement and awareness regarding public issues and to influence political decisions	53
21. Information Management Tools	Innovative tools on public information, especially collecting and aggregating available information or news about situations and events, initiated by any stakeholder of democracy to facilitate information and decision-making	55
22. Participatory Budgeting	Public participation in the budgeting process through electronic participatory tools and procedures hereby making the budgeting process more inclusive	57
23. Political Party’s Internal E-Democracy	Political parties and associations using e-democracy tools for internal purposes, especially the selection of candidates, decision-making and internal party voting to include absent members and accelerate processes	59
24. Single Government Portal	One-stop government Internet websites supporting the citizens in dealing with public authorities by using electronic means - for communicating and transacting with public authorities	61
25. Social Networking E-Democracy	Using Internet based electronic social networks for political debate and initiatives, democratic participation and deliberation primarily among citizens, also with politicians and public authorities, closing the information gap and increasing participation, deliberation and transparency	63
26. Vote Navigator	A web-based tool to provide an overview of political parties, candidates and their programmes for elections, facilitating transparency and offering the elector an independent opinion in forming his/her decision	65
Generic Policies		67
27. Combating Digital Illiteracy	Activities by public authorities and NGOs to combat digital illiteracy and digital divide, enabling all citizens to actively participate in (e-)democracy	67
28. E-Incentives	Activities by public authorities to provide financial, political or other rewards to citizens for their participation in e-democracy	69
29. E-Inclusion	Activities by public authorities and NGOs to promote inclusion in (e-)democracy especially of the unconnected, the elderly, minorities, other marginalised socio-economic groups and citizens with special needs	71
30. E-Training	Initiatives by public authorities and other actors for training in particular elected representatives, politicians and civil servants in using e-democracy methods	73
31. Government Interactivity with Citizens: G2C with C2C	Interaction by public authorities with electronic grassroots initiatives by either integrating them into the political process or providing such grassroots initiatives with administrative or financial support leading to an increased participation of citizens	75
32. Overcoming E-Obstacles	Activities to eliminate barriers of access and use of e-democracy, especially the previously elaborated issues of digital divide and digital illiteracy	77
33. Regulating E-Democracy	Provision of regulatory frameworks and regulations for e-democracy by public authorities, non-governmental authorities, providers or users in order to facilitate e-democracy and to secure the citizens' rights and interests	79

Figure 1: Overview of E-Democracy Generic Tools and Policies

This analysis clusters the practices in two general and broad categories: tools and policies - expressing the top-level character of the initiative and facilitating orientation for the addressee.

Each generic practice contains an implementation stage. This clustering is in addition to the differentiation between policy and tool provided in order to ease the setup of an implementation roadmap. It can be used as a possible scheme of building blocks for the implementation of e-democracy.

The concept of building blocks is reflecting the use of the described generic tool or policy. Policies are mainly driven by public authorities to establish a fundament for the electronic means of democracy and specifically for the described tools.

The generic descriptions should support the planning, development and implementation of the tools. The list which is not complete tries to cover the diversity of available tools and policies to set up e-democracy.

I. Generic Tools
1. E-Campaigning
Engaging in a co-ordinated way, by electronic means, with people and encouraging people to engage with each other in order to mobilise and/or convince individuals in political campaigns - electoral and others - to promote causes, endeavouring to directly or indirectly influence the shaping or implementation of public policies.
1.1. Overview

Initiator	The political party, the candidate, NGOs
Reason / objective	Increasing participation in a political cause including in respect to elections and getting more votes
Function for democracy	Participation
Timeline	Up to 6 months, depending on the complexity and the used systems
Responsibility	With the initiator, PPP possible
Finance	By the initiator, funding and donations
Focus	Main driver and focus are the wish to win a cause including elections and convince citizens of the political (party’s / candidates') program; the government focus is to get as many people to vote as possible
Selected addressed problems of democracy	Low and declining participation in political life including institutions and elections, inflexible (election) systems, the interest of young people in public affairs
Mode of interaction	Passive and / or interactive
Other	Accountability and transparency of the provided information is important for the citizens. Lack of trust could lead to protest activities/voting or apathy.

1.2. Basis of initiative
Who can initiate the project?
Parties, candidates and governments can initiate e-campaigning and
e-electioneering projects.
Reasons for initiating the project
Parties and candidates want to spread information about their programs, aims and goals. Governments want to increase awareness for voting. All of them use the electronic channels as additional channels to address the citizens.
Main objectives / goals of the initiative
Main objectives are information and participation in the election.
How can the initiative relate to other democratic initiatives in the area - both online and offline?
These initiatives are mainly launched during election campaigns but can also relate to other participation initiatives and can be combined with mash-ups or social network activities.
1.3. Management
What partners - including public and private - can there be and what can their roles be?
Private partners can be used for the development of the tools. Media support alongside other NGOs teaming up with the party can increase awareness of the campaign.
Can there be other key actors besides project partners?
The key actors are the citizens/voters: if the campaign does not attract them, it will fail.
Implementation stage
Early stage
1.4. Other aspects
What factors can provide political support for the initiative?
Political support is given, because it is either parties or candidates that initiate most of the projects. Apart from that the provision of reliable information, gaining an electoral advantage should be impetus enough for any politician.
What can the main achievements of the initiative be?
A higher turnout at the election and more votes for the candidate or the party.

2. E-Citizen Relationship Management (E-CiRM)
Public authorities personalize especially citizens’ information to provide citizen-customized information and improve the quality of data of public administration about its citizens.
2.1. Overview

Initiator	The public authority
Reason / objective	Providing the citizens with customized information, improving the service and data quality
Function for democracy	Participation
Timeline	Period of approximately six months, depending on complexity
Responsibility	At the initiating institution: PPP not possible
Finance	By the public budget
Focus	Customized information on citizen’s request
Selected addressed problems of democracy	Growing mistrust in politics, lacking rights / involvement and representation of long-term residents of foreign nationality, lack of information on democratic rights and processes in native / minority tongues
Mode of interaction	Passive
Other	Identification, security and stability of the system are the biggest challenges. Given the migration to E-CiRM, “digital divide” issues have become increasingly important and have to be considered at an early stage

2.2. Basis of initiative
Who can initiate the project?
This project can only be initiated by the administration.
Reasons for initiating the project
Faster response to citizen’s input and requests; providing the citizen with customized information; improving the service quality of the administration.
Main objectives / goals of the initiative
Providing citizens with customized information and increasing the quality of data of public administration about its citizens.
How can the project relate to other democratic initiatives in the area - both online and offline?
This project should relate to e-government and can be combined with the establishment of electronic complaint procedures.
2.3. Management
What partners - including public and private - can there be and what should their roles be?
Public partners can be other administrative bodies. Private partners can be found for the development of the system, its integration and its maintenance.
Can there be other key actors besides project partners?
So far there have been no other key actors involved in this type of initiative; therefore, this cannot be evaluated.
Implementation stage
Later stage
2.4. Other aspects
What factors can provide political support for the initiative?
The improved provision of information for citizens should constitute an impetus for politicians and the public administration to support these initiatives.
What can the main achievements of the initiative be?
The main achievement of the initiative should be a cost-efficient, fast and responsive service that provides customized services and information for the citizen. To establish a tracking system for citizens of the progress and outcomes of their inquiry, which means also increasing the accountability and transparency.
What criteria can be used to evaluate the initiative?
The initiatives can be evaluated according to the number of procedures managed electronically and the number of citizens that have been successfully served.

3. E-Complaints
In particular public authorities are using ICTs to provide citizens with means for complaint, conflict resolution and in combination with other initiatives to establish some citizen relationship management. Non-public actors could use this e-democracy method as well, both with respect to issues in the public domain and to issues of private institutions.
3.1. Overview

Initiator	In particular public authorities
Reason / objective	To establish an independent, direct and sustainable communication channel for citizens.
Function for democracy	Participation
Timeline	Up to one year for development and implementation.
Responsibility	With the initiating institution, though dependent on the level of establishment (local, regional, national). PPP possible for development and maintenance
Finance	Public initiatives: Public budget. Private initiatives: donations, initiator.
Focus	Introducing a 24/7 complaint and feedback channel for citizens
Selected addressed problems of democracy	Little impact of citizens will beyond elections, corruption by state organs, non-transparent dependencies within democratic institutions
Mode of interaction	Proactive
Other	Such initiatives are heavily dependent on political will, the satisfaction and direct communication through G2C and C2G should be a strong impetus to establish such systems as soon as possible.

3.2. Basis of initiative
Who can initiate the project?
Such initiatives can be introduced either by governments to channel and properly handle citizen complaints and improve citizens’ relationship management. Private initiatives introduce an independent control and complaints body.
Reasons for initiating the project
To establish a sustainable communication channel for the citizen independent of elections or other electronic consultation procedures like e-petitions.

Main objectives / goals of the initiative
Providing an electronic complaint procedure for citizens and increasing their satisfaction with the public authorities. Private projects aim to expose official misbehaviour and provide citizens with a forum for complaints independent of established authorities.
How can the project relate to other democratic initiatives in the area - both online and offline?
Electronic complaint procedures can operate in conjunction with telephone service centres for citizens. Furthermore, these initiatives can be combined with elections to establish an independent control mechanism for citizens to report counterfeits, pressurising, etc.
3.3. Management
What partners - including public and private - can there be and what should their roles be?
For the development and implementation of the system, private companies can act as partners. Furthermore, the media is always a key partner for the promotion of such systems among the citizens. Parties, unions and NGOs can also be useful partners in this regard.
Can there be other key actors besides project partners?
The citizens, who are not project partners, are the most important key actors in the establishment of the system. The consequences of their not-using the system could be fatal to the project.
Implementation stage
Advanced stage
3.4. Other aspects
What factors can provide political support for the initiative?
The increased satisfaction of citizens should constitute a strong impetus for politicians to implement such systems. Furthermore, this general satisfaction could contribute toward a higher turnout at following elections.
What can the main achievements of the initiative be?
The main achievement should be the citizens’ greater satisfaction with politicians and the administration.
What criteria can be used to evaluate the initiative?
Satisfaction polls and participation in electronic complaint procedures in comparison to electronic petition systems can be used as evaluation criteria.

4. E-Consultation
Collecting opinions of designated persons or the public at large on a specific policy issue without necessarily mandating the decision maker. There are various forms of e-consultation, formal and informal, public authority-regulated and unregulated.
4.1. Overview

Initiator	Mainly public authorities
Reason / objective	Bridging the communication gap, collecting citizens’ opinions at the grass roots level.
Function for democracy	Deliberation
Timeline	Depending on the scale of the initiative, between 3 to 12 months.
Responsibility	Government, PPP not possible
Finance	Public funding / budget
Focus	Accelerating citizens’ access to information and establishing a direct, fast and convenient feedback channel.
Selected addressed problem of democracy	Little impact of citizens will beyond elections, lacking citizens inclusion and empowerment, low and declining participation in politics including political institutions and elections, growing mistrust in political institutions
Mode of interaction	Active
Other	Can be used to improve the political culture by enabling direct communication between citizenry and politicians

4.2. Basis of initiative
Who can initiate the project?
The initiators are mainly administrative or government bodies. Academics initiated a few projects on behalf of public authorities.
Reasons for initiating the project
Encouraging discussion and consultation of citizens on different levels, bridging the communication gap between politicians and citizens, and gauging opinions on issues of day-to-day life are the impetus to start initiatives.
Main objectives / goals of the initiative
The main objectives are getting information directly from the citizens, involving citizens in the policy-making process at an early stage, establishing a dialogue with the citizens about policies, highlighting issues of their concern and opening a channel for direct feedback, especially for politicians.
How can this project relate to other democratic initiatives in the area - both online and offline?
Such participatory projects and initiatives can be used in conjunction with larger political or democratic initiatives concerning elections and referenda. These initiatives could also be used to collect and evaluate general positions and opinions of the citizenry unrestricted to a certain political topic or democratic issue.
4.3. Management
What partners - including public and private - can there be and what can their roles be?
Choosing partners for initiatives in these areas largely depends on the topic and its scope. The media should certainly be sought as a partner in informing citizens on the nature of these topics and the relevant background information. Public partners can be other departments at the same level, or, in a multi-level system, partners can co-operate vertically on certain issues. Private partners can be used for developing the platform, marketing and PR support.
Can there be other key actors besides project partners?
Yes, there can. These include, above all, the political parties, unions and other NGOs and the media who hold a large stake in the development and acceptance of such e-consultation initiatives.
Implementation stage
Advanced stage
4.4. Other aspects
What factors can provide political support for the initiative?
The next generations that come to the political fore will have grown up with the Internet. Electronic consultation procedures recognise this fact and can begin to bridge the gap in the real world.
Given the growing importance of local topics and the increasingly well-informed citizenry, these initiatives will also enable politicians to quickly receive their valuable input on the important issues, which affect them.
What can the main achievements of the initiative be?
The main achievement of such initiatives should be to improve the quality of participatory political culture and opening the world of politics to new groups in society.
What criteria can be used to evaluate the initiative?
Participation rates, the number of laws and regulations introduced based on the initiatives, and the satisfaction of citizens and politicians after a certain period of time after the introduction of the law or regulation in comparison to one, which was not introduced based on such initiatives.

5. E-Consulate / E-Embassy
The use of electronic means and ICTs to provide services to citizens living or travelling abroad (and aliens) in terms of information, consular support, applications, consultation / participation and e-voting.
5.1. Overview

Initiator	Governments, embassies
Reason / objective	Enabling citizens living or working or travelling abroad with an easy-to-access and comprehensible service platform
Function for democracy	Participation
Timeline	Up to 6 months, depending on the complexity and the used systems
Responsibility	With the initiator: PPP possible
Finance	By the initiator
Focus	Main driver and focus are providing citizens abroad and aliens with accessible services, with part
Selected addressed problems of democracy	Little appreciation of democratic institutions, low and declining participation in elections
Mode of interaction	Passive and / or interactive
Other	System performance, transparency and usability are crucial for the success of such tools.

5.2. Basis of initiative
Who can initiate the project?
Governments and embassies can initiate such e-consulate projects.
Reasons for initiating the project
Integration and participation of citizens living abroad
Main objectives / goals of the initiative
Main objectives are information and participation of citizens living abroad.
How can the initiative relate to other democratic initiatives in the area - both online and offline?
These initiatives can provide access to citizens abroad in political initiatives and elections in there home country by a combination with e.g. e-voting, e-participation and e-petition.
5.3. Management
What partners - including public and private - can there be and what can their roles be?
Private partners can be used for the development of the tools. Media support alongside teaming up with the party can increase awareness of the tools and inform about using it.
Can there be other key actors besides project partners?
The key actors are the citizens abroad, because the system fails if they are not using it.
Implementation stage
Early stage
5.4. Other aspects
What factors can provide political support for the initiative?
Such a system should not need political support, as it is a necessity to include citizens abroad in the political process of their home country. Political support could stem from an increase in information and participation of citizens abroad in elections and other political initiatives.
What can the main achievements of the initiative be?
Higher satisfaction with government service among citizens abroad and possibly a higher turnout of them in elections and participation initiatives

6. E-Democracy Games
Games and simulations developed or implemented by public authorities, NGOs, policy centres or private actors to explain and introduce e-democracy, its processes and tools to citizens, shape the public sphere and foster the knowledge on (e-)democracy.
6.1. Overview

Initiator	Government, policy centres, NGOs, private actors
Reason / objective	Facilitating introduction of e-democracy and shaping the public sphere
Function for democracy	Participation
Timeline	Up to one year, depending on scope and complexity of the game
Responsibility	Initiating institution has overall responsibility
Finance	By the initiating organization
Focus	Information, education and training with e-democracy tools
Selected addressed problems of democracy	Low and declining participation in politics including political institutions and elections, lacking transparency of the voting systems, little interest of young persons in public affairs, limited access to modern means of communication and information by citizens
Mode of interaction	Interactive
Other	Such simulations and games are success factors for the introduction and acceptance of citizens, a long-term approach is required, because e-democracy cannot be established over night

6.2. Basis of initiative
Who can initiate the project?
Government, policy centres, NGOs and private actors can initiate the project.
Reasons for initiating the project
Facilitating access to electronic democracy, getting citizens used to new channels of democracy and uncovering hidden and informal feedback, opinions and comments on public and political issues directly from the citizens are all valid reasons for initiating the project.
Main objectives / goals of the initiative
The main objectives of the initiative involve introducing e-democracy tools and bridging the communication and interaction gap between citizens and governments.
How can the initiative relate to other democratic initiatives in the area - both online and offline?
The launch of the game can relate to democracy initiatives surrounding elections and referenda for example. In fact, it can relate to almost every e-democracy tool.
6.3. Management
What partners - including public and private - can there be and what can their roles be?
Private partners can develop and operate the system; governments can team up with existing initiatives and support them with funding, for example. Citizens can act as beta-testing partners.
Can there be other key actors besides project partners?
Games heavily depend on their recognition and popularity among users; the media therefore has an important role to play in publicising these projects.
6.4. Other aspects
What factors can provide political support for the initiative?
The enhancement and development of democracy should be a strong impetus for politicians to support such initiatives.
What can the main achievements of the initiative be?
A positive attitude towards electronic democracy and increased participation and deliberation
What criteria can be used to evaluate the initiative?
Possible criteria include the turnout at the next election, participation rates in the games and in the real initiatives that follow.
Implementation stage
Schedule independent

7. E-Democracy Webcasts
Live streaming / web casting of legislative / executive / judiciary meetings over the Internet by public authorities, providing citizens and other interested stakeholders with information and increasing transparency.
7.1. Overview

Initiator	The institutions themselves
Reason / objective	Increasing transparency by providing information for the citizens about processes inside political institutions
Function for democracy	Transparency
Timeline	Between three and six months
Responsibility	Overall responsibility should lie with the initiating institutions
Finance	By the institution’s budget or public budget
Focus	Information for citizens about decision-making in political and judicial institutions
Selected addressed problems of democracy	Growing mistrust in politics, little appreciation of democratic institutions, doubts on the legitimacy of parliamentary decisions
Mode of interaction	Passive
Other	Such initiatives greatly depend on systemic capabilities. “Digital divide” issues need to be carefully considered.

7.2. Basis of initiative
Who can initiate the project?
The government, legislative bodies or judicial bodies can initiate such projects. Public Private Partnerships can originate these projects, too.
Reasons for initiating the project
The project is initiated to increase the transparency of government, legislative or judicial activities through broadcasting meetings and sessions.
Main objectives / goals of the initiative
The main objectives involve the idea that the availability of such systems will satisfy the citizens’ desire to look behind the walls of the political apparatus. If transparency increases, so will confidence in the institutions.
How can the projects relate to other democratic initiatives in the area - both online and offline?
The initiative can relate to a number of other democratic initiatives without being bound to any. It can also be implemented as a stand-alone initiative.
7.3. Management
What partners - including public and private - can there be and what should their roles be?
Private partners can be those offering live stream and web cast solutions, or those operating hosting and maintenance services. Public partners can be other institutions and bodies using the same system, which would reduce the relatively high cost of these systems.
Can there be other key actors besides project partners?
Other actors can be, for example, the media and parties who could promote the use of these systems.
Implementation stage
Schedule independent
7.4. Other aspects
What factors can provide political support for the initiative?
Satisfying the citizens’ demand for information regarding political decisions should be a strong impetus for politicians to support the creation of these services.
What can the main achievements of the initiative be?
The main achievements should be the greater satisfaction of citizens, an increased transparency and a more receptive political culture that is open to new generations.
What criteria can be used to evaluate the initiative?
The number of hits on the website and the number of viewed videos can be used to evaluate these initiatives.

8. E-Discussion
Discussions of issues of citizens' concern among citizens, public authorities and others using ICTs and other e-democracy tools in order to foster citizens’ deliberation and participation in democracy.
8.1. Overview

Initiator	Government, citizens, NGOs and parties
Reason / objective	Enabling and fostering deliberation and participation in democracy
Function for democracy	Participation, Deliberation
Timeline	One week to 6 months, depending on complexity, scope and reach of the initiative
Responsibility	With the initiating institutions, PPP possible
Finance	By the initiator, donations, funding and sponsoring
Focus	Any political issue of citizen concern; enabling participation and deliberation
Selected addressed problems of democracy	Lacking citizens inclusion and empowerment, negative public appreciation of democracy, growing mistrust in politics
Mode of interaction	Active
Other	Such initiatives require moderation and monitoring. Challenges include transparency, accountability and censorship

8.2. Basis of initiative
Who can initiate the project?
Governments, citizens, NGOs and parties can all initiate the project.
Reasons for initiating the project
Stimulating political discussion and fostering political culture are reasons for initiating the project.
Main objectives / goals of the initiative
Main objectives of the initiative include enabling and strengthening deliberation and participation among citizens.
How can the initiative relate to other democratic initiatives in the area - both online and offline?
These initiatives can act as a springboard for other democratic initiatives such as e-petitions, e-participation, e-voting and more.
8.3. Management
What partners - including public and private - can there be and what can their roles be?
Partners largely depend on the scope of the initiative; the government, political parties and other public and private actors have a stake in it as soon as it involves a topic of their concern.
Can there be other key actors besides project partners?
The media is an especially important tool in increasing awareness of such initiatives.
Implementation stage
Early stage
8.4. Other aspects
What factors can provide political support for the initiative?
The topics under discussions are of great importance in attracting users and political support.
What can the main achievements of the initiative be?
The main achievement of e-discussion initiatives is fostering a deliberative civic culture by providing training and experience with e-democracy tools.

9. E-Initiative
Using electronic and Internet tools to establish initiatives by citizens in order to participate in or influence political decision-making and engage in political agenda setting.
9.1. Overview

Initiator	Citizens only
Reason / objective	Increasing participation and deliberation of issues of citizens’ concern, creating a platform for citizens to politically communicate
Function for democracy	Deliberation, Participation
Timeline	Depending on complexity, from 1 day to 1 months
Responsibility	With the initiator
Finance	By the initiator, public funding, sponsoring, donations from other citizens
Focus	Creating an independent participatory forum for citizens by citizens
Selected addressed problems of democracy	Low and declining participation in politics including institutions and processes, frustration over false promises, negative public appreciation of democracy, lacking public contestation between political elites
Mode of interaction	Active
Other	Such initiative are mainly related to local issues, the biggest challenge is to reach the critical mass to be heard by politicians

9.2. Basis of initiative
Who can initiate the project?
Such projects are mainly initiated by citizens.
Reasons for initiating the project
The main reasons are increasing participation among citizens and creating awareness for local political issues. The consecutive reason is to increase the awareness of politicians for local concerns.
Main objectives / goals of the initiative
Enabling citizens to increase participation and deliberation.
How can the initiative relate to other democratic initiatives in the area - both online and offline?
Such initiative relate to a number of other democratic and especially e-democratic initiatives. E-spatial planning, e-participation and e-discussion initiatives can be related or even a part or a follow-up of e-initiatives.
9.3. Management
What partners - including public and private - can there be and what can their roles be?
There can be a wide range of project partners from politicians on local or upper levels to business or other stakeholders in society and public life for development, implementation, financing or communicating such initiatives.
Can there be other key actors besides project partners?
The media and the citizens are key actors. Media creates awareness and public recognition and citizens are users and drivers of such projects.
Implementation stage
Early stage
9.4. Other aspects
What factors can provide political support for the initiative?
Political support is depending on participation of a critical mass of citizens in such initiatives. Public reception and media coverage can significantly increase political support for such initiatives.
What can the main achievements of the initiative be?
The main achievement should be to create a vital, deliberative community and enabling a participatory public sphere.

10. E-Journalism
Using electronic and internet tools to publish information and news, report from political (party) events and event blogging by citizens and officials in order to provide unfiltered information and increase transparency and accountability.
10.1. Overview

Initiator	Mainly citizens
Reason / objective	Citizen generated content, independent of government and established media sources
Function for democracy	Deliberation, Transparency
Timeline	Easy to establish, one blog takes one day
Responsibility	With the initiator
Finance	By the initiator, public funding, sponsoring, donations from other citizens
Focus	Creating an independent, reliable media source, freedom of speech and information
Selected addressed problems of democracy	Frustration over false promises, negative public appreciation of democracy, lacking public contestation between political elites
Mode of interaction	Ranges form passive to interactive
Other	Both censorship and complete freedom of speech can pose serious threats to such initiatives.

10.2. Basis of initiative
Who can initiate the project?
Such projects are mainly initiated by citizens. Sometimes party or the media initiate such projects to enable public discussions.
Reasons for initiating the project
The main reason is creating an independent platform or channel for information and communication of citizens.
Main objectives / goals of the initiative
Enabling citizens to generate content about political issues of public concern is the main goal of such initiatives.
How can the initiative relate to other democratic initiatives in the area - both online and offline?
Such initiatives can be connected to almost any offline and online democracy initiative.
10.3. Management
What partners - including public and private - can there be and what can their roles be?
Public partners can be found in governments, parties or associations supporting the establishment of such an initiative or providing funding. Private partners can be developers or providers of certain platforms and technologies and funding.
Can there be other key actors besides project partners?
The media and the users are other key actors.
Implementation stage
Early stage
10.4. Other aspects
What factors can provide political support for the initiative?
For a large number of initiatives, the quality of the provided information and the power / influence of the author / initiator / project within the community are the most important factors in securing political support.
What can the main achievements of the initiative be?
The main achievement should be to create a vital, deliberative community and enabling a participatory public sphere.

11. E-Justice
Using ICT in the conduct of justice, by all stakeholders of the judiciary, in order to increase efficiency and quality of public service in particular for citizens and business.
11.1. Overview

Initiator	Public authorities
Reason / objective	Transparency and better information
Function for democracy	Deliberation
Timeline	Depending on complexity, approximately 3 months
Responsibility	With the initiating institutions, PPP possible
Finance	By the initiator
Focus	Increasing efficiency and quality of public service in the judiciary
Selected addressed problems of democracy	Little appreciation of democratic institutions, growing mistrust in politics
Mode of interaction	Passive
Other	The biggest challenge is ensuring the transparency and accountability of the provided information and the development and implementation of flexible efficient processes

11.2. Basis of initiative
Who can initiate the project?
Governments or the administrative bodies can initiate such a project.
Reasons for initiating the project
The project is initiated to increase efficiency in judicial processes between the various stakeholders resulting in higher quality and faster responding public service.
Main objectives / goals of the initiative
The initiative aims to increase transparency and better inform citizens, which in turn promotes the development of civic culture.
How can the initiative relate to other democratic initiatives in the area - both online and offline?
Such initiatives can be part of a bigger digitalization strategy of public administration with the aim of providing the citizens and the civil servants with a highly integrated and efficient ICT environment - especially initiatives in the area of e-legislation or e-parliament.
11.3. Management
What partners - including public and private - can there be and what can their roles be?
Project partners can be other public institutions with a stake in judiciary and private partners for development, implementation and maintenance.
Can there be other key actors besides project partners?
Other actors are the civil servants and stakeholders in judiciary, because they need to use the system and the citizens as the final beneficial addressee of such a system, their interests and demands should be considered.
Implementation stage
Early stage
11.4. Other aspects
What factors can provide political support for the initiative?
A transparent and comprehensible architecture generates public support in such a system. A benchmark of the processes before and after the introduction can further increase public and consequently political support as soon as the electronic processes are increasing efficiency and quality of judiciary.
What can the main achievements of the initiative be?
Increasing the efficiency and the quality of communication and data exchange among the stakeholders in judiciary should be the main achievement.

12. E-Legislation
Using ICT for drafting, commenting upon, consulting, structuring, formatting, submitting, amending, voting and publishing of acts of elected assemblies.
12.1. Overview

Initiator	Government, especially legislative bodies
Reason / objective	Improving processes within the legislation through digitalization of a set of processes related to bill-making and -enacting.
Function for democracy	Transparency
Timeline	Depending on complexity, approximately 6 months
Responsibility	With the initiator
Finance	By the initiator
Focus	Increasing efficiency and communication processes with in the legislation
Selected addressed problems of democracy	Declining legitimacy of the parliamentary system, doubts on the legitimacy of parliamentary decisions, lack of stability of legislation
Mode of interaction	Passive
Other	The biggest challenge is the communication of higher efficiency and transparency to the citizen. Citizens are indirect beneficial addressees of such a system change.

12.2. Basis of initiative
Who can initiate the project?
Such projects are initiated by governments or legislative bodies
Reasons for initiating the project
The main reason is improving the internal processes within the legislation in making bills and enacting laws and the external process of communicating the new legislation.
Main objectives / goals of the initiative
Faster, better and efficient internal law-making processes and better informed citizens.
How can the initiative relate to other democratic initiatives in the area - both online and offline?
Such initiatives can be part of a bigger ICT strategy of public institutions and can especially be connected with e-justice or e-parliament initiatives.
12.3. Management
What partners - including public and private - can there be and what can their roles be?
Private partners can be developers or providers of certain platforms and technologies.
Can there be other key actors besides project partners?
The media can be a partner in communicating such new processes and increasing citizens’ trust in and understanding of such systems.
Implementation stage
Early stage
12.4. Other aspects
What factors can provide political support for the initiative?
Comprehensibility and user friendliness are the key factor to get support from the users, mainly politicians and civil servants.
What can the main achievements of the initiative be?
The main achievement should be to establish an efficient and transparent law-making process with a comprehensible and easy-to-use interface for citizens to access legislations.

13. E-Ombudsman and Audit Institutions
Internet sites of ombudsman and audit institutions publishing information about public authorities’ compliance with rules and especially providing citizens with a(n anonymous) possibility to issue a complaint electronically, thus establishing enhanced means of control and increasing the transparency of the political system.
13.1. Overview

Initiator	The ombudsman and/or audit institution(s)
Reason / objective	Publishing information, increasing transparency, facilitating complaints
Function for democracy	Transparency
Timeline	Approximately three months
Responsibility	With the initiating institution
Finance	By the public budget or the institution’s budget
Focus	Increasing transparency and fostering trust in public and political institutions.
Selected addressed problems of democracy	Negative public appreciation of democracy, declining legitimacy of parliamentary decisions, lacking effective control by parliament and audit institutions
Mode of interaction	Proactive
Other	Accountability and transparency are the pillars of democracy; therefore, any modern democratic system should possess a strong impetus towards establishing such electronic services.

13.2. Basis of initiative
Who can initiate the project?
These projects are initiated by the Ombudsman or the audit institution itself.
Reasons for initiating the project
The project is initiated to publish important reports and documents as well as general information about the institution’s work and remit. Secondly, the project is initiated to facilitate the complaint procedure for reporting malpractice within administrative or government bodies.
Main objectives / goals of the initiative
The initiative should publish information in order that citizens can better assess the work of public authorities and also provide a channel through which they can file complaints about malpractice.
How can the project relate to other democratic initiatives in the area - both online and offline?
It is unlikely that these projects can be carried out in conjunction with other, more political, democratic initiatives given the imperative of independence in this case. However, they can conceivably be launched alongside other e-complaint initiatives or e-petitions.
13.3. Management
What partners - including public and private - can there be and what should their roles be?
Public partners can include other ombudsmen from regional and local levels or from other nations. Private partners can be useful for the development, implementation and maintenance of the system.
Can there be other key actors besides project partners?
As always, the media and the people themselves play a crucial role in promoting, adopting and, in this sense, validating the system.
Implementation stage
Schedule independent
13.4. Other aspects
What factors can provide political support for the initiative?
Accountability and transparency are central pillars of any democratic system. Consequently, politicians should possess a strong drive to establish and promote any new initiative that bolsters these principles. Furthermore, the integration of the e-literate adolescent generation into political culture is a serious challenge for modern political systems.
What should the main achievements of the initiative be?
The main achievement of such an initiative should be the increased transparency of the political system and better-informed citizens.
What criteria can be used to evaluate the initiative?
The number of complaints and the number of hits on the relevant web pages can be used to evaluate this initiative.

14. E-Parliament
The use of ICT by representative, consultative or deliberative assemblies, their members and political and administrative staff, in the conduct of their tasks, actively involving its electorate / citizens.
14.1. Overview

Initiator	Mainly parliaments - at local, regional, national, European, international levels
Reason / objective	Increasing transparency and efficiency of parliamentary work and the availability of information for citizens
Function for democracy	Participation, Transparency
Timeline	Depending on the complexity, three to 12 months for development and implementation
Responsibility	With the initiating institution, limited PPP possible
Finance	The public budget
Focus	Streamlining intra-parliamentary processes and workload of public authorities and politicians and providing information for citizens, increasing awareness and satisfaction with parliament’s work
Selected addressed problems of democracy	Low and declining participation in politics including political institutions, doubts on the legitimacy of the parliamentary system, non-transparent dependencies within democratic / political institutions
Mode of interaction	Passive for the citizens, proactive for member of parliaments and members of the administration
Other	Connected MPs, cost advantages of electronically available and published information in comparison to print, though the issue of the “digital divide” must be taken seriously.

14.2. Basis of initiative
Who can initiate the project?
Such initiatives can only be initiated out of the parliament or the government itself.
Reasons for initiating the project
Better-connected members of parliament to the Internet, improving the communication, collaboration and efficiency of internal processes and as a consequence of the internal improvements increasing the accessibility, accountability and transparency of processes and decision for citizens.
Main objectives / goals of the initiative
The main goal is to improve internal processes and workflow and increase transparency and accountability to the outside / citizens.
How can the project relate to other democratic initiatives in the area - both online and offline?
The here described E-Parliament is not obviously related to other democratic initiatives. Its development and implementation should not be subject of any campaign or election. But such system influences indirectly almost any democratic initiative, because members of parliament can more easily interact with citizens and the transparency of parliamentarian processes increases.
14.3. Management
What partners - including public and private - can there be and what should their roles be?
Together with other institutions and administrative bodies, it is possible to create inter-institutional and administrative information portals for members, administration and citizens. Private partners can be useful for the development, operation, training and maintenance of the platform.
Can there be other key actors besides project partners?
Besides project partners, the members of the parliament are key actors, if they are not using it, there is no need for such a system. Furthermore the citizenry and the media are indirect key actors as they are benefiting from better internal communication and working processes.
Implementation stage
Early stage
14.4. Other aspects
What factors can provide political support for the initiative?
Such a system should improve the communication and collaboration among and between the parliamentarians and the administration. This can lead to the creation of new points of contact especially with younger generations, which are growing up with the Internet.
What can the main achievements of the initiative be?
The main achievement should be a better-coordinated and faster working parliament and administration and secondly a better-informed citizenry who is better satisfied with its politicians.

15. E-Party (external)
The use of ICTs by political parties and corporations/associations to provide information about their activities, conventions and campaigns as well as participation opportunities online for its members and interested citizens - can include asking the members and non-members for feedback and establishing a deliberative communication channel.
15.1. Overview

Initiator	Political parties and associations, and public law corporations
Reason / objective	Increasing participation and information of members and potential supporters
Function for democracy	Participation
Timeline	Up to 3 months, depending on complexity
Responsibility	With the initiator; PPP possible
Finance	By the initiators budget, sponsoring and public funding
Focus	Public recognition for the activities and policies of a party; encouraging support and awareness among citizens
Selected addressed problems of democracy	Low and declining participation in politics including political institutions and elections, negative public appreciation of democracy, declining legitimacy of the parliamentary system
Mode of interaction	Passive, opportunities to become interactive
Other	Presenting a political party to the outside world electronically opens a new channel for dynamic and interactive communication. Younger generations and would-be supporters can be approached more easily and directly

15.2. Basis of initiative
Who can initiate the project?
Parties and associations are the initiators of such projects.
Reasons for initiating the project
To increase electoral turnout, keep party members well informed and attract new members, are reasons for initiating this kind of project.
Main objectives / goals of the initiative
The initiative should increase participation and provide information to party members.
How can the initiative relate to other democratic initiatives in the area - both online and offline?
Elections, participation projects and petition initiatives can be part of or a starting point for such projects. In many cases, these initiatives are related to election campaigns.
15.3. Management
What partners - including public and private - can there be and what can their roles be?
Public partners, excluding the party and its associated organizations, are not feasible. Private partners for the development of the system and its maintenance are possible.
Can there be other key actors besides project partners?
Media and sponsors are other key actors for such a system.
Implementation stage
Early stage
15.4. Other aspects
What factors can provide political support for the initiative?
Mobilising new voters and the creation of a new channel for political communication should encourage political support for such an initiative.
What can the main achievements of the initiative be?
Opening a new channel of communication that reaches out to citizens and attracts new generations to party work, and which altogether benefits the civic culture, are the main achievements of the initiative.
What criteria can be used to evaluate the initiative?
Measuring access rates to the website is the first method of evaluation. In addition, the electoral turnout can measure the long-term effect of such project.

16. E-Petition
Electronic delivery of a protest or recommendation to a democratic institution about a public institution, a law, or to provide the public authorities or representatives with their opinion.
16.1. Overview

Initiator	Government and administrative bodies, esp. parliaments and city councils
Reason / objective	Establishing a direct electronic petition channel, raising public participation and interest in daily politics
Function for democracy	Deliberation
Timeline	Minimum three months for development and implementation
Responsibility	Committee for Petitions, selected members of a public authority, NGOs. PPP possible for development and maintenance
Finance	Public initiatives through the public budget, private initiatives through the initiator or donations
Focus	Depending on the local, regional or national level there were different scopes, issues and outcomes
Selected addressed problems of democracy	Low and declining participation in politics including political processes, frustration over false promises, imbalance of / lacking implementation of separation of power, lacking effective control by parliament or audit institutions
Mode of interaction	Active and proactive
Other	Follow-up procedures are of great concern; such initiatives can be easily combined with other political e-initiatives

16.2. Basis of initiative
Who can initiate the project?
E-petitions can only be initiated by citizens. The democratic institutions, however, can have initiated most of the formalized e-petition platforms. The top platform providers are national and regional parliaments as well as city councils.
Reasons for initiating the project
Reasons include, amongst others, gauging opinion, criticising a current situation or political decision, facilitating decision-making at local, regional and national levels, opening another channel of direct communication from G2C and vice versa, and facilitating interaction between citizen and public authorities.
Main objectives / goals of the initiative
E-petition platforms initiated by public authorities aim to establish a direct line of communication between the public authority and the citizen, raising public interest in daily politics and, consequently, participation.
The goals are to create an uncensored, easily evaluated system for petitions to provide opinions regarding specific topics and issues. Fundamentally, the main objective is the realisation of the principles of sharing power, accountability, access, participation, and equal opportunities.
How can the project relate to other democratic initiatives in the area - both online and offline?
The time period is, in some cases, related to other political initiatives if e-petitions were used as a part of a larger political or democratic project.
In large restructuring projects, e-petitions could be used to collect and evaluate the position or opinion of the citizens. Otherwise, e-petitions are widely used and not restricted to a certain political topic or democratic issue.
16.3. Management
What partners - including public and private - can there be and what can their roles be?
Partners depend on the scope and topic of the e-petition. Certainly the media can be used for informing citizens about the possibility of providing their opinion. Public partners can include other departments within the administration at the same level or, in a multi-level system, partners can co-operate vertically on a given issue. Co-operation in private and public e-petition initiatives is issue-driven. Private companies can be partners in developing the platform, providing financial funding, marketing and PR support.
Can there be other key actors besides project partners?
Depending on which stakeholder approach is taken, stakeholder representatives can play an important role as project partners.
Implementation stage
Advanced stage
16.4. Other aspects
What factors can provide political support for the initiative?
The utility of e-petitions to gauge public opinion on specific issues, in particular on those relating to forthcoming election campaigns, is the key consideration for political supporters of the initiative.
What can the main achievements of the initiative be?
The initiative should be a new law or the revision of laws and regulations introduced by public administration or the government.
What criteria can be used to evaluate the initiative?
The number of laws introduced or revised after a petition, the extent of citizen participation and the number of petitions per citizen / community / county or region in historical comparison are possible evaluation criteria.

17. E-Politician
Politicians electronically providing information about themselves, their work, decision-making and voting, and interacting and deliberating with their and others' public authorities as well as citizens (constituents) and the media; furthermore information provided by the administration or government regarding the politician using ICTs.
17.1. Overview

Initiator	Politicians themselves, political parties, private organizations and NGOs
Reason / objective	Fostering closer ties between the citizen and the politicians, facilitating the citizen’s decision at election time
Function for democracy	Transparency
Timeline	Development and implementation are possible within six months
Responsibility	With the initiating institution, body or organization
Finance	By the initiator, donations or public funding; PPP possible
Focus	Tracking and publishing representatives’ activities and publicizing such information to the people.
Selected addressed problems of democracy	Negative public appreciation of democracy, declining legitimacy of the parliamentary system, little interest of young people in public affairs
Mode of interaction	Proactive, active
Other	This system depends on regular and constant updates; therefore, maintenance is the key challenge.

17.2. Basis of initiative
Who can initiate the project?
Private organisations, citizens, the politicians themselves, political parties and the government can initiate these projects.
Reasons for initiating the projects
Citizens do not often have close ties with their political representatives. These initiatives can help to bring them closer together. Furthermore, they increase the transparency of democratic decision-making and facilitate the citizen’s choice of candidates during elections.
Main objectives and goals of the initiative
The initiative should increase transparency and the quantity of pertinent information available to the citizen. Additionally, these initiatives enable politicians to establish closer and more reciprocal relations with their constituencies.
How can the project relate to other democratic initiatives in the area - both online and offline?
Such initiatives are usually established before elections when citizens are especially curious to know more about their representatives. Following the elections, they tend to become something of a track record of the representative’s voting and other activities.
17.3. Management
What partners - including public and private - can there be and what should their roles be?
Politicians can partner with private companies to develop and implement their specific Internet site. Private projects can seek other private partners for the development and implementation of the Internet platform. If the government initiates such a project, it should, however, still partner with private actors to secure transparency.
Can there be other key actors besides project partners?
The media, political parties and unions can be other key actors in promoting such an information portal.
Implementation stage
Early stage
17.4. Other aspects
What factors can provide political support for the initiative?
The active participation of the representative might help secure re-election (though this needs to be further assessed). Nevertheless, for the sake of a vibrant and democratic political culture, representatives should want to render themselves more accountable to their constituents by all means possible.
What can the main achievements of the initiative be?
The initiative should increase citizens’ identification with their representatives and a greater comprehension of issues, thus causing satisfaction with their decisions and activities.
What criteria can be used to evaluate the initiative?
The number of hits and visitors over the period of one year and the level of satisfaction of the citizens can be used.
Lastly, any correlation between the use of these websites and a change in voting patterns could be very useful.

18. E-Spatial Planning (E-Neighbourhood)
Discussion and participation in urban planning in a neighbourhood context initiated by citizens, NGOs and/or public authorities making use of ICTs to foster local participation and find solutions on a local base.
18.1. Overview

Initiator	Citizens, private actors, local governments
Reason / objective	Fostering local participation, bringing local concerns on the political agenda
Function for democracy	Participation, Deliberation
Timeline	2-3 months
Responsibility	With the initiator, PPP possible
Finance	By the initiator, mainly by public budget
Focus	Driven by citizens’ issues and local concerns
Selected addressed problems of democracy	Little impact of citizens will beyond elections, low and declining participation in politics including political processes, decoupling of market actors and government in the field of policy making, declining legitimacy of the parliamentary system
Mode of interaction	Active, interactive
Other	Establishment of grass root initiatives and participative projects will be facilitated in order to foster the development of a participatory public sphere

18.2. Basis of initiative
Who can initiate the project?
Citizens, private actors, local governments and councils can initiate such projects.
Reasons for initiating the project
To involve citizens in local planning and government affairs.
Main objectives / goals of the initiative
Fostering local participation and local identity are the main goals of this kind of initiative.

How can the initiative relate to other democratic initiatives in the area - both online and offline?
E-neighbourhood projects can prepare the ground for further initiatives like e-participation and e-petitions. Mash-ups and other tools can be used for setting up an e-neighbourhood initiative.
18.3. Management
What partners - including public and private - can there be and what can their roles be?
Public Private Partnerships are often used for e-neighbourhood projects. Especially for initiatives related to the construction or re-building of urban areas, private companies and citizens cooperate in discussing local issues.
Can there be other key actors besides project partners?
Other actors are the media and the government. If these entities are not involved as initiators, they can provide facilities and support for e-neighbourhood projects.
Implementation stage
Advanced stage
18.4. Other aspects
What factors can provide political support for the initiative?
Such initiatives are of great interest to local politicians. Local elections and other political events can provide further stimulus for political support.
What can the main achievements of the initiative be?
The consideration of the citizens’ views in privately initiated projects like housing or construction and the involvement of citizens in electronic democracy on a local level.
What criteria can be used to evaluate the initiative?
The participation rate in e-neighbourhood projects measured by the number of hits and comments on the website are suitable criteria for the evaluation of such initiatives.

19. E-Voting
An electronic election or referendum that involves the use of electronic means in at least the casting of the vote, hereby enabling e.g. increasing accessibility for citizens and faster counting.
19.1. Overview

Initiator	Mainly governments or election authorities
Reason / objective	Faster counting, increased accessibility, image
Function for Democracy	Participation
Timeline	More than one electoral period, incremental implementation
Responsibility	Government, PPP not possible
Finance	Public funding / budget
Focus	Mainly Internet-Voting, partly Electronic Voting Machines, e-electoral roll
Selected Addressed Problem of Democracy	Low and declining participation in politics including elections, lacking transparency of the voting system, inflexible election systems
Mode of Interaction	Interactive
Other	Legal framework is necessary, huge public discussions

19.2. Basis of initiative
Who can initiate the project?
Of the examined projects, up to 90% were initiated by government and administrative institutions. Only a small percentage were initiated by privately organized groups (e.g. in Argentina) and NGOs (e.g. in Bogotá, Colombia) or academia.
Reasons for initiating the project
For public authorities, the project serves mainly to facilitate faster and more reliable vote counting. For the citizen, increased electoral availability and mobility (access from remote locations, including regions with poor postal service) is most important. For politicians, the image of innovation is a strong motive.
Main objectives / goals of the initiative
Receiving faster and more direct feedback from the citizens, accelerating the process of vote tallying and facilitating participation in various and repeating polls, elections and referenda.
How can the project relate to other democratic initiatives in the area - both online and offline?
Electronic voting should always act as an additional channel to the physical casting of votes, being especially useful, for example, for absentee voting. Therefore, it has to be combined with all other voting channels. For referenda or gauging public opinion, electronic voting can be used in addition to telephone, fax and postal voting. Using ballot machines in the polling station electronic voting tools can be used in addition to paper voting.
Furthermore, electronic voting should not be viewed in isolation but rather as an integral support to the electoral cycle as a whole (including campaigning and electioneering electronically).
19.3. Management
What partners - including public and private - can there be and what can their roles be?
Other public institutions can be partners with electronic election initiators, such as NGOs and pressure groups who support elections by mobilizing voters.
Private partners can be advertising partners and developers of the e-voting system: the voting machines, the Internet portal or voting platform.
Can there be other key actors besides project partners?
Electoral turnout is the central component of elections. The media can be the key actor in mobilizing voters and informing them about the issues to vote on. External pressure groups can also be crucial in mobilizing dissenting votes or demobilizing voters.
Implementation stage
Later stage
19.4. Other aspects
What factors can provide political support for the initiative?
Low turnouts at the previous elections should be a strong impetus for politicians to pull out all the stops and facilitate the new voting procedure. The provision of electronic voting will also attract the adolescent generations, for whom the Internet is the most important method of communication.
What can the main achievements of the initiative be?
The main achievement should be higher turnouts and the opening up of a political society to new generations and further development.
What criteria can be used to evaluate the initiative?
Turnout, allocation of participating age groups, and security and stability measures should be used for the evaluation of electronic voting systems.

20. Grassroots Citizens’ Interactivity
(G2C and C2G)
Interaction by public authorities with electronic grassroots initiatives by either integrating them into the political process or providing such grassroots initiatives with administrative or financial support leading to an increased participation of citizens.
20.1. Overview

Initiator	Citizens
Reason / objective	Creation of a public sphere and awareness of public issues
Function for democracy	Deliberation, Participation
Timeline	3 months
Responsibility	With the initiating citizens or group, PPP possible
Finance	By the initiator, public funding, donations, sponsoring
Focus	All issues of citizens’ concern, most initiatives happen in a local context or deal with a local topic
Selected addressed problems of democracy	Low and declining participation in politics, little impact of citizens’ will beyond elections, lacking citizens’ inclusion and empowerment, negative public appreciation of democracy
Mode of interaction	Interactive
Other	Such initiatives need a certain momentum to create awareness, this is easier if such initiatives are organized in tandem with other e-democracy initiatives

20.2. Basis of initiative
Who can initiate the project?
Such grassroots initiatives on the citizens level can only be initiated by the citizens themselves, any other institution can support or facilitate the establishment of such projects.
Reasons for initiating the project
Citizens initiate these projects in order to collaborate and organize their opinions.
Main objectives / goals of the initiative
The basic objective is the creation of a public sphere of deliberation and participation.
How can the initiative relate to other democracy initiatives in the area - both online and offline?
The initiative can relate to several others offline and online, including petitions, participation projects initiated by the government, mash-ups, social network initiatives, and more.
20.3. Management
What partners - including public and private - can there be and what can their roles be?
Public partners can be found in the government or in NGOs and associations. Private partners can support the initiative by providing necessary tools or services or funding.
Can there be other key actors besides project partners?
The media and other citizens and citizen initiatives can have a big influence on this kind of projects.
Implementation stage
Early stage
20.4. Other aspects
What factors can provide political support for the initiative?
C2C initiatives gain political support and recognition when they are close to election dates and if they get attention and recognition from citizens and the media. C2G initiatives gain political support as soon as the topic is of concern for the government.
What can the main achievements of the initiative be?
The main achievement should be strengthening the deliberation and participation of citizens.
What criteria can be used to evaluate the initiative?
The number of citizens participating and the number of C2C and C2G initiatives integrated into the legislative processes can be used to evaluate the initiative.

21. Information Management Tools
Innovative tools on public information, especially collecting and aggregating available information or news about situations and events, initiated by any stakeholder of democracy to facilitate information and decision-making.
21.1. Overview

Initiator	Government, citizens, NGOs and other private actors
Reason / objective	Transparency and better information
Function for democracy	Deliberation
Timeline	Depending on complexity, approximately 3 months
Responsibility	With the initiating institutions, PPP possible
Finance	By the initiator
Focus	Providing comprehensible and aggregated information on a particular issue or topic, not limited to local or national frameworks
Selected addressed problems of democracy	Low and declining interest and participation in politics, lacking transparency of voting systems, little interest of young persons in public affairs, lack of understandable and accessible information on democratic processes
Mode of interaction	Passive
Other	The biggest challenge is ensuring the transparency and accountability of the provided information. The advantage of such systems is the availability of a large quantity of aggregated and comprehensible information.

21.2. Basis of initiative
Who can initiate the project?
Governments, citizens, political parties, NGOs and other private actors can initiate such a project.
Reasons for initiating the project
The project is initiated to provide relevant and important information, aggregated and filtered from the Internet.
Main objectives / goals of the initiative
The initiative aims to increase transparency and better inform citizens, which in turn promotes the development of civic culture.
How can the initiative relate to other democratic initiatives in the area - both online and offline?
The collection and connection of information can relate to any democratic initiative, the most important is related to elections, petitions and participation.
21.3. Management
What partners - including public and private - can there be and what can their roles be?
All interested parties in the issue of the initiative can be potential project partners. Likely supporters could be found in the media and amongst political candidates and political parties.
Can there be other key actors besides project partners?
The media and political support can play a significant role regarding communication and raising awareness of the initiative.
Implementation stage
Early stage
21.4. Other aspects
What factors can provide political support for the initiative?
Political support for such initiatives is strongly dependent on the political will and the general position on e-democracy. It remains, however, a great opportunity to better inform the public.
What can the main achievements of the initiative be?
The main achievement should be a stronger civic culture resulting from a better-informed public.

22. Participatory Budgeting
Public participation in the budgeting process through electronic participatory tools and procedures hereby making the budgeting process more inclusive.
22.1. Overview

Initiator	Government, legislative assembly
Reason / objective	Creating and fostering a public debate on and support of the government budget
Function for democracy	Transparency, Participation
Timeline	Depending on the complexity up to 6 months
Responsibility	With the initiator, PPP possible
Finance	By the initiator, public budget
Focus	Participatory budgeting using ICTs
Selected addressed problems of democracy	Low and declining participation in politics, lacking citizens' inclusion and empowerment, lack of possibilities of citizens to be included in legislation
Mode of interaction	Active
Other	Strong support of politicians is required to achieve a a public budget reflecting the demands and needs of the participating citizens

22.2. Basis of initiative
Who can initiate the project?
Such projects can only be initiated by governments and/or legislative assemblies. The examples show that this is mainly done by cities.
Reasons for initiating the project
The main reasons are creation and fostering of a public debate on the governments budget, increasing support of citizens for the budget by integrating their demands and wishes in the budget and a better-informed citizenry regarding budget restrictions.
Main objectives / goals of the initiative
Integrating citizens in the budget planning process and creating a budget reflecting citizens' demands and will.
How can the initiative relate to other democratic initiatives in the area - both online and offline?
The initiative can relate to other electronic and non-electronic participation projects e.g. e-consultation, e-discussion, furthermore information generated from e-petition or e-initiatives can be integrated in the budget planning before discussions with citizens take place.
22.3. Management
What partners - including public and private - can there be and what can their roles be?
Public partners can be NGOs and citizens initiatives at the local level for promoting and supporting the discussion process. Private partners can supply the system or develop customized solutions to implement and evaluate citizens’ input.
Can there be other key actors besides project partners?
The media and citizens’ interest group are key actors in promoting such initiatives. The validity of such initiatives is depending on the number of participating citizens and their diversity for a representative cross-section of society.
Implementation stage
Advanced stage
22.4. Other aspects
What factors can provide political support for the initiative?
Political support can be provided and fostered by a huge participation of citizens. Politicians are elected representatives; consequently they should have a strong inherent support for such initiatives.
What can the main achievements of the initiative be?
The main achievement should be a public budget reflecting the demands and interests of the participating citizens.
What criteria can be used to evaluate the initiative?
Criteria for evaluation can be the number of participating citizens in comparison to the number of affected citizens, the change in participation between two initiatives. These initiatives can relate to the turnout at election, consequently this number could be of interest for evaluation, too.

23. Political Party’s Internal E-Democracy
Political parties and associations are using e-democracy tools for internal purposes, especially the selection of candidates, decision-making and internal party voting to include absent members and accelerate processes.
23.1. Overview

Initiator	Political parties and associations
Reason / objective	Facilitating the selection of candidates, acceleration of voting and internal decision-making
Function for democracy	Participation
Timeline	At least one election cycle
Responsibility	The initiating institution / party
Finance	By the initiator
Focus	Mainly on internal decision-making and selection of candidates by internet voting
Selected addressed problems of democracy	Low and declining participation in political institutions, in particular political parties; negative public appreciation of democracy, declining legitimacy of the parliamentary system
Mode of interaction	Active (only for party members)
Other	Such initiatives have the potential to be forerunners for general elections and create trust and support for further e-elections.

23.2. Basis of initiative
Who can initiate the project?
Parties and associations can initiate the project.
Reasons for initiating the project
The project serves mainly to facilitate faster and more reliable vote counting. Increased electoral availability and mobility (access from remote locations, including regions with poor postal service) are also important.
Main objectives / goals of the initiative
To receive faster and more direct feedback from the party members and accelerate vote tallying.
How can the initiative relate to other democratic initiatives in the area - both online and offline?
Links to external democratic initiatives are not feasible, with a possible exception during pre-election periods. Internally, the project can relate to party convention for nominating candidates.
23.3. Management
What partners - including public and private - can there be and what can their roles be?
Other public actors cannot be part of such an initiative. Private partners can assist the development and maintenance of the system.
Can there be other key actors besides project partners?
Other key actors are the media and hackers trying to manipulate the outcome of votes.
Implementation stage
Later stage
23.4. Other aspects
What factors can provide political support for the initiative?
Support for such an initiative must already exist when the system is launched, as the party itself is a closed system, deciding on its own election tools and processes.
What can the main achievements of the initiative be?
Increased participation in internal selection processes, and greater trust in and accountability of the results.
What criteria can be used to evaluate the initiative?
The participation in the internal selection in comparison to the years before can be an appropriate evaluation criteria.

24. Single Governmental Portals
One-stop government Internet websites supporting the citizens in dealing with public authorities by using electronic means: web-based platforms for communicating and transacting with public authorities.
24.1. Overview

Initiator	Government
Reason / objective	Facilitating the access to information, lowering costs, increasing efficiency of the administration
Function for democracy	Participation
Timeline	Minimum of six months, depending on the complexity of the processes involved.
Responsibility	Government, especially IT department, PPP not possible
Finance	By the public budget
Focus	Facilitating the interaction between citizens and government, accelerating administrative processes.
Selected addressed problems of democracy	Little appreciation of democratic institutions, lack of understandable and accessible information on democratic processes
Mode of interaction	Interactive
Other	Security of citizen’s data and identification are serious challenges; legal framework should be set up in advance.

24.2. Basis of initiative
Who can initiate the project?
Such e-government projects can only be initiated by the government itself.
Reasons for initiation
Reasons include facilitating public access to information and forms, etc., and cutting the cost of handling and administering citizen issues and queries through electronic facilities.
Main objectives / goals of the initiative
The initiative should provide easy, comprehensible and fast access to government information for the citizens.
How can the project relate to other democratic initiatives in the area - both online and offline?
E-government initiatives should not relate to other democratic initiatives, especially on the basis of content. However, for promotion purposes, it could be beneficial to launch the project alongside other electronic initiatives.
24.3. Management
What partners - including public and private - can there be and what should their roles be?
Public partners can include other departments of public authorities. Private partners can be used for the development of the system and its implementation. Citizens’ data-related sub-projects should be overseen by government authorities or its subsidiaries.
Can there be other key actors besides project partners?
Because these projects are government only projects, there are no other key actors.
Implementation stage
Advanced stage
24.4. Other aspects
What factors can provide political support for the initiative?
Providing a fast, comprehensive, and comprehensible service should be incentive enough for the government to undertake such a project, though cost reduction should, of course, also taken into account.
What can the main achievements of the initiative be?
The main achievements should be the establishment of one-stop electronic government and the reduction of administrative costs in the long run.
What criteria can be used to evaluate the initiative?
The number of administrative procedures done electronically in comparison to those carried out in government offices can be used as an indicator of public acceptance of e-government.

25. Social Networking E-Democracy
Using Internet based electronic social networks for political debate and initiatives, democratic participation and deliberation primarily among citizens, also with politicians and public authorities, closing the information gap and increasing participation, deliberation and transparency.
25.1. Overview

Initiator	Citizens, governments, everybody else
Reason / objective	Closing information gap; communication, collaboration and coordination of activities
Function for democracy	Participation, Deliberation, Transparency
Timeline	Easy and fast to establish, within one day
Responsibility	With the initiator or initiating institution
Finance	By the initiator
Focus	Such projects are not focused on any particular issue or level but completely initiator- and issue-driven
Selected addressed problems of democracy	Low and declining participation in politics including political processes, lacking citizens inclusion and empowerment, negative public appreciation of democracy, non-transparent dependencies within democratic / political institutions
Mode of interaction	Interactive
Other	The exclusivity and limitation to a certain degree of media knowledge and capability are the biggest challenges of social networks in e-democracy

25.2. Basis of initiative
Who can initiate the project?
Social network activities can be initiated by citizens, governments and anyone else.
Reasons for initiating the project
Reasons for initiating the project are to close the information gap, set up spaces and tools for communication, collaboration and coordination of activities on political issues of public concern.
Main objectives / goals of the initiative
Deliberation, participation and information are the main objectives.
How can the initiative relate to other democratic initiatives in the area - both online and offline?
Initiated social network activities with a political impetus can relate to any other democratic initiative online and offline but research has shown that social networks are used especially for international events, elections and participation projects.
25.3. Management
What partners - including public and private - can there be and what can their roles be?
There are no partners required to start such a project or movement though public awareness is crucial to success, in which case social networks might fruitfully work in partnership with each other.
Can there be other key actors besides project partners?
The most important key actors are the users of social networks and the media who can publicise the initiative and extend its scope.
Implementation stage
Advanced stage
25.4. Other aspects
What factors can provide political support for the initiative?
The issues covered and the information provided in combination with trustees and supporters can facilitate political support.
What can the main achievements of the initiative be?
Meaningful results in the public sphere i.e. the offline world.
What criteria can be used to evaluate the initiative?
The number of users participating in such initiatives and the number of subscribers to groups or discussion.

26. Vote Navigator
A web-based tool to provide an overview of political parties, candidates and their programmes for elections, facilitating transparency and offering the elector an independent opinion in forming his/her decision.
26.1. Overview

Initiator	NGOs, associations and policy centres
Reason / objective	Support and information of the voter in opinion formation
Function for democracy	Deliberation, Participation
Timeline	Initial setup 6 months with adjustments and improvements at every election
Responsibility	The initiating institution, PPP possible
Finance	By the initiator
Focus	Informing citizens, increasing turnout and legitimising democracy
Selected addressed problems of democracy	Low and declining interest and participation in politics, low and declining participation in elections, lacking political contestation between political elites, declining legitimacy of the parliamentary system
Mode of interaction	Interactive
Other	Challenges: accountability, transparency and trust Opportunities: better-informed citizens and higher participation in elections

26.2. Basis of initiative
Reasons for initiating the project
The reasons for initiating the project include bridging the information gap between political parties and citizens and supporting the voters in selecting a party or candidate.
Main objectives / goals of the initiative
The main goal is to support and inform the voter and provide a tool to facilitate the decision-making of the voter.
How can it the initiative relate to other democratic initiatives in the area - both inline and offline ?
Such vote navigation tools are bound to elections (offline and online). They are not of much use for any other democratic initiatives.
26.3. Management
What partners - including public and private - can there be and what can their roles be?
Such a tool is dependent on the usage and quality of information. Therefore, technical partners for development and hosting of the service play an important role. Private Public Partnerships are possible.
Can there be other key actors besides project partners?
The media and all other promotion partners are of great importance.
Implementation stage
Early stage
26.4. Other aspects
What factors can provide political support for the initiative?
In a democracy, every politician should be dedicated to keeping citizens informed. Therefore, political support should not be an issue. However, the quality and the reliability of such a system require the continued commitment of politicians and parties.
What can the main achievements of the initiative be?
The main achievements should be better-informed citizens well equipped to fully understand their choices, make decides and participate in the next election.
What criteria can be used to evaluate the initiative?
The turnout at the election, the satisfaction of citizens with the representatives and parties, and the number of users can be used to evaluate a vote navigator.

II. Generic Policies
27. Combating Digital Illiteracy
Activities by public authorities and NGOs to combat digital illiteracy and digital divide, enabling all citizens to actively participate in (e-)democracy.
27.1. Overview

Initiator	Mainly governments although NGOs and citizen interest groups may initiate too
Reason / objective	Inclusion of citizens in e-democracy
Function for democracy	Participation, Deliberation
Timeline	Long-term approach; up to several years
Responsibility	Government or initiating institutions, PPP possible
Finance	By government and other initiating institutions
Focus	Not only long-term, but including all social ranks, all minority groups etc.
Selected addressed problems of democracy	Lacking citizens inclusion and empowerment, barriers to access and communicate for people with special needs, language and culture barriers of ethnic minorities
Mode of interaction	Passive
Other	The inclusion of all citizens is difficult to achieve. Digital divide issues and digital illiteracy are serious threats to e-democracy.

27.2. Basis of initiative
Who can initiate the project?
These projects for combating digital illiteracy are initiated by governments and NGOs or citizen interest groups.
Reasons for initiating the project
The project should be initiated to allow as many citizens as possible to benefit from electronic democracy, to bridge the 'digital divide', and to make e-democracy more inclusive.
Main objectives / goals of the initiative
Main objective is to include every citizen in electronic democracy.
How can the initiative relate to other democratic initiatives in the area - both online and offline?
This initiative goes hand in hand with all other e-democracy initiatives. Its connection to offline initiatives is not immediately obvious.
27.3. Management
What partners - including public and private - can there be and what can their roles be?
Governments, NGOs and citizens can be useful partners in increasing the scope and effectiveness of such initiatives.
Can there be other key actors besides project partners?
Other key actors apart from the media are difficult to identify.
Implementation stage
Advanced stage
27.4. Other aspects
What factors can provide political support for the initiative?
Such initiatives should be among the top priorities of any politician; the inclusion of citizens in e-democracy supports the legitimacy of democracy itself and consequently, its representatives as well.
What can the main achievements of the initiative be?
Reducing exclusion due to 'digital divide' issues to a minimum, in particular, including citizens with special needs in e-democracy initiatives.
What criteria can be used to evaluate the initiative?
Participation of citizens in e-democracy initiatives in general can be the criteria used to evaluate the initiative.

28. E-Incentives
Activities by public authorities to provide financial, political or other rewards to citizens for their participation in e-democracy.
28.1. Overview

Initiator	Governments, NGOs, initiators of other e-democracy projects
Reason / objective	Initiate, increase the use of e-democracy
Function for democracy	Participation
Timeline	No evaluation available
Responsibility	For such projects with the initiator, PPP possible
Finance	By the initiator
Focus	Creating an added value and a positive attitude towards e-democracy
Selected addressed problems of democracy	Low and declining participation in politics including processes, dichotomy between formal equality and real inequality, non-transparent dependencies within democratic / political institutions
Mode of interaction	Passive
Other	Such initiatives should be considered before implementing further e-democracy initiatives and binding citizens to further initiatives

28.2. Basis of initiative
Who can initiate the project?
Such projects are hard to evaluate, because their number is very limited. Governments, parties or NGOs can initiate them.
Reasons for initiating the project
To initiate or to increase the use of e-democracy tools and to create a positive attitude towards e-democracy tools
Main objectives / goals of the initiative
Increasing the use of e-democracy and creating a positive attitude towards it.
How can the initiative relate to other democratic initiatives in the area - both online and offline?
E-incentives in virtual or physical form can relate to any e-democracy initiative, but are most suitable for e-voting, e-petitions and e-participation initiatives.
28.3. Management
What partners - including public and private - can there be and what can their roles be?
There is not much data available about partners. It is conceivable that private partners support the incentive financially or by establishing corporate incentives.
Can there be other key actors besides project partners?
There is no evidence of other key actors.
Implementation stage
Schedule independent
28.4. Other aspects
What factors can provide political support for the initiative?
The positive results, in terms of support and participation, should be incentive enough for politicians and governments to support such projects.
What can the main achievements of the initiative be?
A positive attitude towards e-democracy and further use of such tools for participation and deliberation should be the main achievements of the initiative.
What criteria can be used to evaluate the initiative?
The number of citizens participating in subsequent initiatives should reveal the extent to which willingness to participate has increased.

29. E-Inclusion
Activities by public authorities and NGOs to promote inclusion in (e-)democracy especially of the unconnected, the elderly, minorities, other marginalised socio-economic groups and citizens with special needs.
29.1. Overview

Initiator	Government, NGOs, interest groups
Reason / objective	Inclusion of excluded groups and their participation and involvement in politics and democracy
Function for democracy	Participation
Timeline	Establishment of initiatives 3 months, change in attitudes and integration is a long-term goal
Responsibility	Initiating institutions, PPP possible
Finance	Government funding, donations, sponsoring
Focus	Inclusion of excluded groups on all levels
Selected addressed problems of democracy	Low and declining participation in politics, lack of citizens to be included in legislation, little interest of young persons in public affairs, limited access to modern means of communication and information by citizens
Mode of interaction	Active and interactive
Other	Sometimes special hardware or software is required, adequate integration and recognition of minority specialities are the biggest challenges.

29.2. Basis of initiative
Who can initiate the project?
Governments and NGOs or interest groups initiate such projects.
Reasons for initiating the project
The inclusion of minorities, elderly people and marginalised groups is the main reason for the initiative.
Main objectives / goals of the initiative
The goal is the inclusion of these groups using e-democracy tools.
How can the initiative relate to other democratic initiatives in the area - both online and offline?
Such initiatives should be combined with any other e-democracy initiatives, especially petitions and participation projects, which have the potential to increase the inclusion of targeted groups.
29.3. Management
What partners - including public and private - can there be and what can their roles be?
Partners can be other interest groups, NGOs and government departments, but also political parties and private actors like companies. The importance for such projects is to create a certain momentum to raise awareness; therefore, a strong supporting network can be of great help.
Can there be other key actors besides project partners?
The other key player is once again the media; this type of project in particular is all about public recognition and awareness.
Implementation stage
Advanced stage
29.4. Other aspects
What factors can provide political support for the initiative?
Political support for minority issues is sometimes a very tough issue. Representatives of minority groups in particular, have to collaborate and lobby for political support.
What can the main achievements of the initiative be?
The main achievements are first the inclusion of minorities in e-democracy by overcoming the 'digital divide' issues and second the integration of their opinions in the political agenda.
What criteria can be used to evaluate the initiative?
The participation of minority members in e-democracy initiatives and the integration of the results are possible criteria for evaluation.

30. E-Training
Initiatives by public authorities and other actors for training in particular elected representatives, politicians and civil servants in using e-democracy methods.
30.1. Overview

Initiator	Government, parties, private companies
Reason / objective	Establishing networks of e-democracy experts and mentors in specific organizations. Developing media competency.
Function for democracy	Participation
Timeline	Four weeks; follow up modules are recommended
Responsibility	At the initiator or supplier of such trainings, PPP possible
Finance	By the initiator, public funding
Focus	Education and training, establishing an e-democracy friendly environment
Selected addressed problems of democracy	Lacking democratic processes within political parties, lacking integration and representation of minorities, lack of understandable and accessible information on democratic processes
Mode of interaction	Interactive (within a closed user group)
Other	Such projects are mandatory for the development of an e-democracy as a new channel of participation and deliberation in democracy.

30.2. Basis of initiative
Who can initiate the project?
Governments, parties and private actors initiate these projects.
Reasons for initiating the project
Training civil servants, representatives and other members of civil institutions and peer groups
Main objectives / goals of the initiative
Developing media competence, training and creating expert groups for e-democracy within the public authority are the main objectives of the initiative.
How can the initiative relate to other democracy initiatives in the area - both online and offline?
The trained and informed civil servants can enable further government e-democracy initiatives.
30.3. Management
What partners - including public and private - can there be and what can their roles be?
Partnerships are possible between the three groups of initiators (government, parties and private actors - namely companies developing e-democracy tools and systems.
Can there be other key actors besides project partners?
Other key actors are hard to imagine.
Implementation stage
Schedule independent
30.4. Other aspects
What factors can provide political support for the initiative?
Political support is not really important for the training of civil servants. However, electronic democracy supports the development of democracy in the future and can bring the government and parties closer to the citizens; consequently, politicians should strongly support the education and training of civil servants and representatives.
What can the main achievements of the initiative be?
A well-trained and open staff on the government level and within political parties supporting electronic democracy initiatives can be the main achievements of the initiative.
What criteria can be used to evaluate the initiative?
For evaluation, tests and examinations can be used. Furthermore, the number of government initiated e-democracy projects before and after the implementation of such e-training tools can shed light on the level of success.

31. Government Interactivity with Citizens Initiatives (G2C with C2C)
Government interacts with electronic citizen-driven initiatives by either integrating them into the legislative process or providing such grassroots initiatives with either administrative or financial support leading to a facilitated establishment and an increased participation of citizens.
31.1. Overview

Initiator	Government, although citizen initiatives already in place
Reason / objective	Facilitating the establishment of grassroots initiatives and increasing participation in these initiatives
Function for democracy	Participation
Timeline	Up to 3 months for the establishment of grassroots initiatives monitoring system
Responsibility	Government
Finance	By the public budget
Focus	Monitoring and supporting grassroots initiatives
Selected addressed problems of democracy	Low and declining participation in formal political processes, lacking citizens inclusion and empowerment, imbalance of / lacking implementation of separation of power, frustration over false promises
Mode of interaction	Interactive
Other	Biggest opportunity is the integration of grassroots initiatives into the political agenda whilst the greatest challenge is ensuring the accountability and transparency of government interaction.

31.2. Basis of initiative
Who can initiate the project?
Such projects rely on pre-existing grassroots initiatives. Therefore, the original initiators are the citizens themselves. The link between these initiatives and government activity is established at the government level.
Reasons for initiating the project
The main reasons are a lack of connection between government and citizens and the wish of the government to integrate citizen initiatives into the legislative process.
Main objectives / goals of the initiative
The initiative should increase citizens’ participation in the civic and political culture and help to integrate citizens’ concerns and their political will into the government agenda.
How can the project relate to other democratic initiatives in the area - both online and offline?
The grassroots initiatives can be a starting point for the development of legislative bills and consequently for bigger e-participation projects and e-petitions.
31.3. Management
What partners - including public and private - can there be and what should their roles be?
Other partners can be from the media, who can help publicise the initiative, or politicians and NGOs that can improve cooperation at grassroots level.
Can there be other key actors besides project partners?
The media and other grassroots initiatives can support the project with knowledge and information.
Implementation stage
Advanced stage
31.4. Other aspects
What factors can provide political support for the initiative?
The democratic interaction between government and citizens should be a guiding principle and incentive for politicians to support the initiative, Furthermore, the integration of grassroots initiatives in politics increases the legitimacy of any government.
What can the main achievements of the initiative be?
The initiative should improve political and civic culture, fostering citizen engagement and participation in political life.

What criteria can be used to evaluate the initiative?
The number of e-participation and e-petition initiatives is a good indicator whilst a broader criterion can be general participation in e-democracy initiatives and the turnout at the next election.

32. Overcoming E-Obstacles
All activities to eliminate barriers of access and use of e-democracy, especially the previously elaborated issues of digital divide and digital illiteracy.
32.1. Overview

Initiator	Government, public institutions, citizens
Reason / objective	Enable citizens to use e-democracy tools
Function for Democracy	Participation
Timeline	Overcoming single obstacles can happen fast, but a long-term approach is required
Responsibility	With the initiating institutions, mainly governments. PPP possible
Finance	By the initiator, but most of the projects are government financed or at least supported
Focus	Inclusive and long-term approach are recommended
Selected addressed problems of democracy	Lack of possibilities of citizens to be included in legislation, lack of understandable and accessible information on democratic processes, limited access to modern means of communication and information by citizens
Modes of interaction	Passive
Other	Such initiatives should be implicit; fundament for successful and transparent e-democracy

32.2. Basis of initiative
Who can initiate the project?
Government, public institutions and citizens can initiate such projects.
Reasons for initiating the project
The main reason is to enable citizens with the tools, the knowledge and the right information to participate in electronic democracy.
Main objectives / goals of the initiative
Increased participation in electronic democracy and a positive attitude towards it
How can the initiative relate to other democratic initiatives in the area - both online and offline?
Elections are easily combined with this type of project. In particular, the introduction of electronic voting offers the chance to introduce a long-term plan for overcoming obstacles.
32.3. Management
What partners - including public and private - can there be and what can their roles be?
Partners in overcoming obstacles can include public institutions like educational institutions and citizens’ centres. Private partners could be unions, NGOs and other associations supporting the provision of information and the training of citizens.
Can there be other key actors besides project partners?
Other key actors can be system developers who also provide training and the media, which could be important in publishing information and raising public awareness of the project.
Implementation stage
Advanced stage
32.4. Other aspects
What factors can provide political support for the initiative?
Political support should not be an issue: the benefits for citizens and democracy itself should be a strong impetus for politicians to support such initiatives.
What can the main achievements of the initiative be?
A positive attitude towards electronic democracy and the removal of any obstacles hampering participation in future e-democracy initiatives.
What criteria can be used to evaluate the initiative?
The use of electronic democracy tools at the next election, petitions or any other e-democracy initiative.

33. Regulating E-Democracy
Provision of regulatory frameworks and regulations for e-democracy by public authorities, non-governmental authorities, providers or users in order to facilitate e-democracy and to secure the citizens' rights and interests.
33.1. Overview

Initiator	Public authorities and private actors
Reason / objective	Supporting the establishment of e-democracy projects
Function for Democracy	Participation
Timeline	Max. 3 months
Responsibility	Public authority or private actor
Finance	Out of the initiator’s budget
Focus	Public authorities' initiatives cover the general aspects; private or NGO initiatives cover one specific aspect of e-democracy
Selected addressed problems of democracy	Doubts on the legitimacy of parliamentary decisions, lacking democratic processes within parties
Mode of interaction	Passive
Other	Technology is not the most important component of this type of project. The communication and acceptance of the guidelines, alongside the appropriate training, are the most important conditions of success.

33.2. Basis of initiative
Who can initiate the project?
Mainly governments or public institutions although NGOs, associations and other private actors may also provide e-democracy systems or facilities
Reasons for initiating the project
To provide e-democracy initiators with guidelines for setting up their projects, which could help them, navigate the risks involved, take advantage of opportunities or inform them of certain administrative or legal requirements etc.
Main objectives / goals of the initiative
Supporting the establishment of e-democracy.
How can the initiative relate to other democratic initiatives in the area - both online and offline?
Guidelines, especially those published by governments, are the initial starting point for electronic democracy initiatives. Related offline initiatives could be the creation of guidelines for post-election activity.
33.3. Management
What partners - including public and private - can there be and what can their roles be?
Partners can be other governments and initiators of e-democracy projects for interviews and feedback about important issues regarding the implementation of e-democracy.
Can there be other key actors besides project partners?
It is hard to assess what other actors can be involved. However, it is clearly very important that those to which the guidelines apply must use them, or else the initiative has failed.
Implementation stage
Advanced stage
33.4. Other aspects
What factors can provide political support for the initiative?
Electronic democracy will be a pillar of democracy in the future. All politicians should support guideline initiatives, because they provide a common ground for establishing this new pillar.
What can the main achievements of the initiative be?
Informed and involved citizens, increased participation and the establishment of new e-democracy initiatives
What criteria can be used to evaluate the initiative?
The use of such guidelines for establishing new e-democracy initiatives and the access rates to the guidelines can be used to evaluate the initiative.

Appendix: Framework Description
In the following we describe the framework used to detail the 33 instruments.

1 Name of the instrument
Here a short description of the instrument is given, with its main aims, actors, benefits and risks.
1.1 Brief description

Initiator	Main initiating bodies and institutions
Reason / objective	Reason to initiate such a project and its main effect on e-democracy
Function for Democracy	There are three types of functions for democracy: increases in deliberation, participation or transparency
Timeline	How long does the implementation take
Finance	The type of financing is given (private, public, PPP)
Focus	What is the main focus of the initiative
Selected addressed problems of democracy	Which problems / pitfalls of democracy are addressed
Interactivity	This mode of interaction describes the interaction between the participants in the initiative. There are four different modes: passive, active, interactive and proactive
Other	Constraints, challenges, opportunities and other important requirements or pre-requisites of the initiative

1.2 Basis of initiative
Who can initiate the project?
The initiators of such projects are described here. In most cases one differs between public and private initiators whilst public ones are mainly the governing authorities.
Reasons for initiation
This is a description of the main reasons for initiating the project.
Main objectives / goals of the initiative
Under this section the main goals and objectives of the initiative are described.
How can the initiative relate to other democratic initiatives in the area - both online and offline?
Here all related offline and online initiatives with link to the described initiative are evaluated.
1.3 Management
What partners - including public and private - can there be and what can their roles be?
Besides the initiator and other key responsible persons or institutions other partners can be and are involved in most of the analyzed projects. These project partners are mentioned in this section.
Can there be other key actors besides project partners?
Besides initiators and project partners in many cases there are other key actors involved, which are evaluated under this heading.
Implementation stage
This provides an indication of when to schedule the implementation of the described tool or policy within a possible roadmap for e-democracy - early, advanced, later stage - or to schedule it independently of a roadmap.
1.4 Other aspects
What factors can provide political support for the initiative?
A broad political support can strengthen the success of almost any e-democracy initiatives. The way political support can be successful and necessary is evaluated in this section.
What can the main achievements of the initiative be?
This summarizes the main achievements for the political environment, citizens and the political agenda through the specific e-democracy initiative.
What criteria can be used to evaluate the initiative?
Within this section different methods and indicators are described to evaluate the impact of the specific e-democracy initiative. The possible indicators differ, but in general the degree of citizens’ participation is the most valuable one.

DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF DEMOCRACY AND
POLITICAL AFFAIRS

DIRECTORATE OF DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTIONS

Project «GOOD GOVERNANCE IN THE INFORMATION SOCIETY»

CAHDE (2009) 2E

Strasbourg, 15 January 2009

Indicative Guide No.2 to Recommendation Rec(2009)9 of Committee of Ministers to member states on e-democracy

A roadmap approach to e-democracy

Prepared by the Council of Europe’s Ad Hoc Committee on e-democracy (CAHDE)

Author:

Thomas Rossler, Secure Information Technology Center Austria

Introduction

E-democracy is one of the most challenging topics under discussion in Europe today. Though some countries already have some elements of e-democracy in place, a clearly defined e-democracy toolkit is yet to be established. This paper proposes the creation and use of a roadmap as a pragmatic planning method to inspire and guide further e-democracy initiatives.
Roadmaps have already proved useful in other areas. The European Commission’s i2010 initiative on the development of e-governance in Europe by that year, is one such strategic action plan, based on the achievement of carefully timed and well-defined objectives- the building blocks of success. It is an international roadmap, that is, it coordinates the activities of several countries for a common goal. But this method can be useful on a smaller, national, regional or even project level too. The substantive difference between roadmaps on such different scales is likely to be in the ambition and scope of its goals; a long-term, multinational roadmap, might perhaps have a loftier or more abstract aim, involving more complex procedures, than one dealing with a specific project with a more easily attainable goal. In both, however, realism is important; concrete activities should take place and targets be met, though this may be rather more hands-on and immediate in a smaller project.
In the Council of Europe’s case, the roadmap method by no means implies a monolithic plan for the introduction of e-democracy in the member states. This paper simply proposes the use of roadmaps where they could be particularly useful, for example:

· In the formulation of an e-democracy strategy tailored to a particular country or region.
· In the organisation and planning for the development of a comprehensive e-democracy toolkit or project.

This paper will demonstrate that roadmaps are practical and adaptable tools and provide examples how the future of e-democracy could benefit from their use.

The Purpose of the Roadmap and its Requirements

A roadmap for e-democracy should benefit the stakeholders by providing planning advice and guidelines for the improvement of e-democracy tools and systems. Furthermore, this guidance will be based on examples of good practice and the CoE’s common principles on e-democracy.
To clarify, a roadmap should allow stakeholders to :

1. Gauge their own development status.
2. Identify the next steps necessary for their further development.
3. Work towards a definite endpoint, that is, a vision of fully functioning e-democracy

Most importantly, whilst the roadmap provides building blocks, it is not an inflexible blueprint of technological requirements or change in democratic processes.
In terms of the successful creation of the roadmap itself, a lesson may once again be drawn from the European Union and its e-identity strategy, coordinating the development of interoperable electronic I.D. management systems in the member states. Following in their footsteps, a roadmap can be created by:

1. Establishing a common terminology- Clear definition of terms is vital to all discussion.
2. Collecting examples of good practice- These examples are essential to the creation of the roadmap’s ‘building blocks’.
3. Defining the building blocks of the roadmap- The nature and specificity of the building blocks, as concrete objectives/processes or theoretical prerequisites, must be very carefully considered.
4. Signposting the main stages of development along the roadmap- In order to help stakeholders to identify their own position on the roadmap, measure their progress, and plan their onward journey, qualitative indicators should be established at the main junctures. It is recognized however, that finding an appropriate way to measure progress along the roadmap so schematically may be difficult.
5. Establishing a clear timeline- This should be challenging but realistic, based on progression through well-defined and targeted stages.

Roadmaps are becoming the tool of choice for e-governance initiatives, as the EU’s e-document and e-identity projects suggest. It may be difficult to prepare a well constructed roadmap but once established, not only should it help foster and maintain momentum, but also help to create a common understanding and vision amongst all stakeholders, for the future of e-democracy.

Drawing the map: building blocks in perspective.

This section will elaborate on the basic procedure for creating a roadmap outlined above. Broadly speaking, there are two approaches to creating a roadmap: top down and bottom up. The former works backwards from the final goal to the first step, extrapolating the building blocks from the imagined end. The latter, whilst also possessing a clear set of ultimate aims, works towards them by gradually building up a plan from a well-defined starting point. This more pragmatic approach is echoed in CAHDE discussion document, which tend to approach and describe e-democracy requirements from a bottom-up perspective. The following schema will also take this approach.². It is important to remember however that the methodological divide described here refers only to the creation of the roadmap, not the actual implementation of e-democracy.
The following roadmap schema is created according to a series of building blocks leading from a basic level of e-democracy preparation, to a common goal. For the sake of simplicity, the roadmap and its building blocks can be organised in a linear fashion, though the more complex, ambitious or abstract the final goal, the more additional branches of activity may be required. ³.
Each building block is a milestone, that is, it represents a certain set of requirements that must have been met by that stage of the roadmap. These building blocks are arranged in logical progression but they are by no means isolated. There are two different types of relationship between the building blocks:
1. Defining requirements- Each building block, in representing a stage of development, influences the requirements of the following block/stage.
2. Reviewing achievements- The corollary of the above is that as each milestone is reached the achievement must be reviewed according to the requirements laid out by the previous building block. This is very important for measuring and assessing progress along the roadmap.
Figure 1 illustrates a basic linear roadmap structure and the relations between the building blocks.

Figure 1: Schema of creating a roadmap and the relations between building-blocks; building-blocks are examples.

Figure 2 shows a more complex roadmap structure that takes parallel activities/requirements into account. The magnification of one building block reveals that its internal structure is also organised as a ‘mini-roadmap’. The recursiveness of this design schema is one of its strengths.

Figure 2: Example of a complex roadmap schema containing parallel building blocks.

A concrete roadmap example
The following is an example of how a roadmap might be used for the introduction of e-democracy tools in a region or country. Ulrike Kozeluh’s proposal states that the starting point of any e-democracy project must be a wide-ranging discussion that not only clarifies motives and goals but reviews the practical task ahead. From this example then, three clear building blocks can be extracted: 1. ‘General Considerations’, 2. ‘Practical Considerations’, 3. ‘Establish/ prepare the environment’.(for the project)⁴.
Though by no means complete, the above roughly demonstrates how a proposition can be broken down into manageable building blocks and arranged into a logical sequence. Of course, actions, intentions and the substance of these blocks will vary according to situation. They must be altered accordingly; step 3 deals with this issue as the particularities and shortcomings of the relevant environment (region, country) must be addressed in order to ensure its receptiveness to the proposed e-democracy tools to be introduced in the later stages. This is very important: the building blocks that follow these preliminary stages and the actions they describe, will be conditioned and even defined by the particular situation they refer to. Therefore, we cannot elaborate on this example and outline the content of later building blocks.

Generally however, we can conclude that each building block will be defined by the following elements:

· Building-Block Name
Each building-block must have its own name.
· Requirements
Each building block has a set of requirements, in part defined by the preceding block, which must be fulfilled if the stage can be said to be reached.
· Intention
This is the descriptive element which summarizes the intentions and intended outcome of the above requirements.
· Activities
This element provides a list of activities necessary to fulfilling the aims of the building block.
· Review Criteria
Control questions address all relevant aspects of the building-block and help to verify progress and achievement of the building block’s requirements.
· Remarks
Any further descriptive remarks about the building block.

Building-Block 1) General-Considerations
Requirements	This is the very first building block; thus there are no dependencies with results of preceding building-blocks. Nevertheless, a political motivation or better an agreement on introducing participative processes/e-democratic tools is required.
Intention	Discuss general aspects and formulate the motivation for introducing e-Democracy tools and services. Furthermore, it is necessary to acquire the present democratic behavior considering different aspects, whereas legal and social aspects are of utmost importance. This building block should provide a profound understanding and diagnostics of the current situation with respect to democratic and participative processes and movements.
Activities	The following list is an informative enumeration of possible actions (it does not claim to be complete): · reflect political motivation · determine the existing/planned concept of governance/citizenship · ascertain and describe existing participative processes · determine the influence capability of existing participative processes · determine and describe participative processes which are enabled by law but are not yet in place; describe the expected influence · analyse actors, levels and methods of negotiation and decision making, democratic deficits, power relations and lobbyism · analyse the general political culture, related policy fields and additional ways of democratic policy making · ascertain and identify the (official) political commitment (define expectations and discuss benefits, pros and cons for various levels)
Review-Criteria	The following questions should be answered (this list does not claim to be complete): · What is the aim of participative processes and how to deal with its results? · Is the aimed participative process a bottom up or top down process? · Do you want to meet the increasing demands of public accountability in general? · Which concept of governance / citizenship do you want to follow? · Are aim and consequences (i.e. duties and responsibilities) of each concept clear and transparent for all (the informed citizen, the involved, collaborative or empowered citizen)? · What are the traditional ways of negotiation, participation and decision making? What about political culture as an important factor of influence? · Who is entitled to define a problem which causes the need for a participative process and why? · Is there an official political commitment for introducing e-Democracy services/tools—not only at the level of governance setting off the process, but also on the related levels? Is it possible to guarantee a commitment independently from election periods? · Includes the political commitment the all identified democratic/participative processes or only some of them?
Remarks	The outcome of the investigative activities requested in this building block should provide a basis understanding of existing/possible democratic and participative processes. Furthermore, the democratic culture of society should be acquired.

Building-Block 2) Practical Considerations
Requirements	This building block succeeds building block 1 “General Considerations”. Therefore, the following requirements must be met: · There must exists a complete description (diagnostics) of existing and enabled democratic/participative processes. · A sufficient official political commitment for elaborating on e-Democracy services/tools is required. As the introduction of e-Democracy is a long-term movement, a sustainable commitment is necessary.
Intention	Based on the result of the basis considerations of building-block 1, this building-block aims to analyse the identified (conventional) democratic and participative processes in detail. It should be determined which of them can and should be converted to electronic or electronic aided processes. Furthermore, the identified processes and their semantic requirements should be well described. This building-block should bear the basis for environment related activities targeted in the succeeding building-block. Thus this building-block should result in a semantic definition of requirements and in a set of (semi-)formal process descriptions.
Activities	The following list is an informative enumeration of possible actions (it does not claim to be complete): · determine the added value of an online (electronic) participation process in contrast or supplementary to an offline procedure in this individual case · identify processes which should not be provided in an electronic form and describe why (due to legal, political or organizational reasons) · describe the identified democratic/participative processes in a (semi-)formal way (preferably by using a standardized methodology) · determine and describe precisely the semantic requirements for all processes considered being convertible to an electronic equivalent · identify those processes which should be provided in an electronic/online form; create a list of priority if possible
Review-Criteria	The following questions should be answered (this list does not claim to be complete): · What is the added value of an online participation process in contrast or supplementary to an offline procedure in this individual case? · Which democratic/participative processes should be realized as an electronic/online service or tool? · Do you expect an overall advantage—in comparison to the expected costs/drawbacks—of introducing the identified online processes? If possible, provide a quantitative comparison. · Are all identified processes qualified for being implemented as electronic/online tools/services? · Are all identified processes well described? Are the descriptions complete and exhaustive? · Are the semantic requirements of the identified processes complete and compliant with the legal background (identified in building-block 1)?
Remarks	Usually, e-Democracy services and tools will be introduced stepwise following a phase plan (i.e. master plan). It is recommended to make a phase plan based on the outcome of this building-block and to make a decision regarding concrete e-Democracy (sub-)projects. After this building-block concrete e-Democracy tools might be chosen.

Building-Block 3) Establish Environment
Requirements	This building-block succeeds building block 2 “Practical Considerations”. Therefore, a number of democratic/participative processes which are intended to be implemented as electronic/online services/tools are identified already. For each of them: · a (semi-)formal description, preferably following a standardized methodology exists · a complete description of all semantic requirements exists
Intention	This building-block aims to analyse the environment for creating online/electronic democratic and participative services/tools as identified and described in the preceding building-blocks. This building-block deals with the legal, non-technical and technical environment. If the existing environment lacks of essential elements, this building block should bear concrete suggestions and measurements.
Activities	The following list is an informative enumeration of possible actions (it does not claim to be complete): · reflect the semantic requirements identified in building-block 2 against the given legal background; if necessary, formulate recommendations to adopt the existing legal situation according to the defined requirements · reflect the semantic requirements identified in building-block 2 against the given non-technical background (e.g. organizational situation); if necessary, formulate recommendations to adopt the existing situation according to the defined requirements · reflect the semantic requirements identified in building block 2 against the given technical background (e.g. existing IT-infrastructure); if necessary, formulate recommendations to adopt the existing situation according to the defined requirements · if necessary, create a plan containing concrete measurements in order to prepare a complete environment as required · analyse the resources needed to take part (e.g. money, time, skills, etc.) · analyse citizens’ technical environment (e.g. Internet coverage, etc.) and evaluate the danger of digital divide
Review-Criteria	The following questions should be answered (this list does not claim to be complete): · Does the targeted democratic/participative processes require modifications of the current legal situation? · Is there a political commitment (majority) to enforce the proposed legal modifications? · Are organizational changes required, e.g. is there a need to introduce further authorities or bodies (e.g. national registers, etc.)? · If organizational changes are required, do they imply legal provisions (i.e. legal modifications) as well? · Are the formulated legal and organizational modifications consistent? · Is an exhaustive IT-infrastructure already in place (e.g. provided by national/regional/local e-Government initiatives)? · Are special technical infrastructure components required in order to create the targeted democratic/participative services/tools and which of them exist already (e.g. electronic identity management infrastructure, electronic delivery channels, etc.)? · Do you know the status of skills, the access to resources for participation of those who should/want to participate? · How many citizens are equipped with or have access to the requested infrastructural elements (e.g. Internet, electronic identities, etc.)?
Remarks	This building-block ensures that the environment suits the requirements of the targeted democratic/participative processes. This building-block might result in the conclusion that some requirements postulated during the preceding building-block cannot be fulfilled. If this is the case, the result of the preceding building-block should be reviewed and revised.

Conclusion
This paper has proposed the use of the roadmap method for planning and organising the introduction of e-democracy tools. It is an approach that is being successfully used by the European Union to encourage the use of e-identity technology in its member states. But as demonstrated above, the method can be just as applicable and could prove just as useful on a smaller scale, for instance to plan and monitor a particular e-democracy project. What has been offered in this paper is a simplified, schematic picture of the roadmap method; an example, not an actual proposal. Nevertheless, it is an example that demonstrates how a successful roadmap of an e-democracy enterprise could be drawn.

DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF DEMOCRACY AND
POLITICAL AFFAIRS

DIRECTORATE OF DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTIONS

Project «GOOD GOVERNANCE IN THE INFORMATION SOCIETY»

CAHDE (2009) 3E

Strasbourg, 20 January 2009

Indicative Guide No.3 to Recommendation Rec (2009) .. of Committee of Ministers to member states on e-democracy

A checklist for the introduction of e-democracy tools

Prepared by the Council of Europe’s Ad Hoc Committee on e-democracy (CAHDE)

Author:

Ulrike Kozeluh, Vienna Science Centre

The following list refers to policy makers as well as to individual citizens and NGOs.

Conditions for the introduction of participatory tools differ depending on the intentions and aims of particular democratic processes and the actors’ perspectives: is it information you want to offer/get, consultation or involvement you are planning/you claim, collaboration or empowerment you want to achieve⁵?

Reflections on political motivation, role of participants, legitimacy of results, and the appropriate tool are helpful to develop an agreed framework for the participative process.

General issues to discuss before the implementation of an e-participation tool

· Which concept of governance do you want to follow?

Which concept of citizenship do you want to encourage, or, from the citizen’s viewpoint, claim?

The aims and consequences of each concept must be clear and transparent for all. Formulating general objectives for the participative process determines the normative framework.

· Is it a bottom-up or top-down process? If it is top-down, is there an official political commitment not only at the government level, which sets off the participative process, but also at related levels?

Is it possible to guarantee commitment outside election periods?

Ensuring political commitment for the whole process is necessary to avoid failures and frustration, for example, regarding the legitimacy of results.

· What is the aim of the participative process?

Is it a (consensus based) decision, a compromise between selected groups, a tool to collect experts’ recommendations or differing opinions to get an impression of what individuals/the people think?

What are the expectations concerning the role of participants, the process in its entirety and its percieved results? Do they differ from each other?

It is necessary to be clear about the intention and aim of the participative process in order to avoid expectations varying too greatly and the risk of disappointment.

· How to deal with the results of the process?

Discuss questions of influence capability (related to issues of institutional representation and legitimacy) and reason, the relevance and purpose of the participants’ input in the policy making process.

· Is political culture an important influence?

Consider the relation between societal needs and participative behaviour; participative methods, (technical) tools and results, and if it might be necessary to combine various methods to avoid democratic shortfalls.

Practical preparation

Diagnostics I (political culture):

· What are the traditional methods of negotiation, participation and decision making?

An analysis of actors, levels and methods of negotiation and decision making; democratic deficits, power relations and lobbying; general political culture and related policy fields, is necessary to find innovative, needs-based, forms for democratic policy making.

· What is the added value of an online participation process in contrast or in addition to an offline procedure?

Diagnostics II (decision making):

· At which stage of decision making does the process start or fit in best?

Who decides the methods/design of participation and the choice of technical tools? Do they fit the level of decision making, policy field, theme, political culture and patterns of social adaptation and individual behaviour? (To plan a midterm evaluation of the process might be helpful, especially if negative experiences with participative processes have alreedy been encountered)

· Who is entitled to participate and by which selection criteria are individuals/groups invited - or is it an open process, regulated by a particular interest or skill? (discuss aspects of inclusion and exclusion: pros and cons)

· Are the rules of the game, scope of the problem and the relevance of input clear for all? (public relations or other information tools might help here)

· What kinds of resources are needed to take part, (time, money and information, communicative, social and technical skills). Do you know the level and type of skills and access to participation resources of those who should to participate? If necessary, there must be support to establish equal access for those who are intended to participate or are interested in doing so.

· Is an “as early as possible involvement” warranted or applicable to the range of influence? Is the chosen method as inclusive as possible? (a variety of methods within one participative process can help)

· How to deal with majority/minority proportional results? What is the most transparent method of aggregation?

· Who is responsible for the success of the process? (and who defines “success” ?).

· Who is responsible for transparent documentation and budgeting?

· Who is entitled to decide that the outcome is relevant and legitimate? Discuss how to put the results of a participative process in relation with traditional, legitimate procedures of decision making such as voting etc. or any other institutionalised procedure. Discuss how online and offline procedures might be linked.

· Do you offer exit or alternative strategies in case the process produces a stand-off or does not come to a satisfying end? (Alternative strategies might include a change from online to offline participation, an extended timeframe for the process, inviting additional groups, a mid term evaluation of the process including a public discussion etc.) Includes a discussion on budget.

· What resources are needed to implement the results of the participative process? Who is responsible?

Diagnostics III (evaluation)

· Plan resources (budget, time) for feedback and evaluation designed to test the effectiveness and impact of the tool, including a public discussion on its results.

DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF DEMOCRACY AND
POLITICAL AFFAIRS

DIRECTORATE OF DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTIONS

Project «GOOD GOVERNANCE IN THE INFORMATION SOCIETY»

CAHDE (2009) 4E

Strasbourg, 20 January 2009

Indicative Guide No.4 to Recommendation Rec (2009) .. of Committee of Ministers to member states on e-democracy

A framework for reporting e-democracy initiatives

Prepared by the Council of Europe’s Ad Hoc Committee on e-democracy (CAHDE)

This framework was originally designed by Professor Lawrence Pratchett, De Montfort University, UK, and subsequently adopted and further developed by and for, the Council of Europe's Ad hoc Committee on e-democracy (CAHDE) for its activities on collecting and comparing (good) practices in e-democracy initiatives.

1. Brief description (including novel elements in respect to existing e-democracy pilots)

2. Basis of initiative

- Who initiated the project (type of actor: political leader, civil servant, political party, NGO, interest or issue based networks, citizens, media, commercial organisation)?
- Why and when was it initiated?
- What was the main objective / goal of the initiative?
- Is there public interest / debate on the initiative, its success/failure, and the follow-up to its evaluation?
- How was it developed from the initial idea - and what were the timelines?
- When - if - and how was it finished?
- How does this initiative relate to other democracy initiatives in the area (both online and offline)?

3. Management

- Who had overall responsibility for the project (incl. position), was there an agreed commitment?
- What partners - incl. public and private - were there and what were their roles?
- Were there other key actors (besides project partners) ?
- How was the project financed, and can the costs be assessed (financial and human resources)?
- What plans are there for sustainability/follow up?

4. Focus

- What technologies were used, and why was the specific option chosen?
- What was the focus of the initiative (e.g. nationwide / regional / local, a particular territory, a particular group of citizens, or issue based, cross-border)?
- What policy issues were the subject of the initiative, and were there any selection criteria / processes?
- How was participation in the initiative promoted (including marketing/publicity) ?
- What was the intended / effective participation (quantity, quality) ?
- What was the intended / achieved level of public impact (e.g. information - consultation - involvement - collaboration - empowerment) ?

5. Lessons (where relevant)

- What opportunities were seized and/or what problems did the initiative encounter (e.g. central/regional/local government support, finance and other resources, legal barriers etc) and how were these addressed?
- Were there any specific financial or technical constraints which inhibited the development of the initiative?
- What factors provided political support for the initiative?
- How was the digital divide issue (citizen's access to the relevant technologies) addressed?
- What (if any) were/are the demands/expectations from citizens for such initiatives?
- Have they been satisfied, and what were the main comments by the users?

6. Evaluation

a. What were the main achievements of initiatives?
b. Who undertook the evaluation (eg a third party) ?
c. What criteria have been used to evaluate the initiative (methodological approach focusing on criteria such as e.g. degree of participation, responsiveness of decision-makers, motivation to participate, satisfaction of participants, etc)?
d. (Where) Is the evaluation published?
e. What initiatives are emerging as a result of the evaluation?
f. What, if any, are the next steps?

DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF DEMOCRACY AND
POLITICAL AFFAIRS

DIRECTORATE OF DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTIONS

Project «GOOD GOVERNANCE IN THE INFORMATION SOCIETY»

CAHDE (2009) 5E

Strasbourg, 20 January 2009

Indicative Guide No.5 to Recommendation Rec (2009) .. of Committee of Ministers to member states on e-democracy

Evaluating e-democracy

Prepared by the Council of Europe’s Ad Hoc Committee on e-democracy (CAHDE)

Authors:

Georg Aichholzer, Austrian Academy of Sciences, Institute of Technology Assessment

and

Ulrike Kuzeluh, Vienna Science Centre

Dimensions and approaches for the evaluation of e-democracy

Introduction

The evaluation of eParticipation is related to defining and assessing the quality of democracy and democratic governance.

Evaluation of e-participation intends to provide evidence of whether e-participation extends (from a quantitative point of view) and enriches (from a qualitative point of view) participation, or not.

As there are various approaches to deepening the quality of democracy, evaluation is charged with measuring interrelationships and the impact of e-participation on policy-making: Lessons learnt from previous evaluations show that neither the use of qualitative nor qualitative approaches / indicators alone is sufficient to meet these challenges.

Consequently, a flexible combination of quantitative and qualitative approaches is needed. As political culture and participative behaviour differ from case to case, combinations must be modified for each participation process.

In addition, evaluation of any kind of political participation, whether online or offline, necessitates comparative analyses alongside a well-defined timescale.

Starting points for evaluation exercises:

· As values define the perspective of measurement, clear pre-defined evaluation criteria including values/norms/expectations are recommended.

· As each case is individual, political culture and participative behaviour may differ from case to case.

· The evaluation of a participative process includes an ex ante- and an ex post diagnosis: an assessment of traditional ways of negotiation, participation and decision-making.

· Comparative analyses can be recommended, i.e. mixed and various approaches to measure the quality of democracy, including finding intended and unintended effects.

Key questions for an evaluation include:

· Does eParticipation improve democracy and democratic governance and, if so, how?

· To what extent does it strengthen democracy? What are the intended/unintended

effects?

· What is the impact on policy making and policies themselves?

Evaluation dimensions

1. Quality of Democracy

The following principles or criteria could be used as a measurement framework:

· The institutional order of a social system is based on ideas of freedom and equality (e.g. freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, human rights).

· Referringto the heterogeneity of a society, inclusive citizenship is the leading idea (equal rights to vote, voting systems including minorities).

· Contestation and alternation within an - at least - two party system is selfevident.

· Popular control of policy making is based on the transparency of the decision making processes or “enlightened understanding”.

· The existence of a well established and active public sphere.

Methods include, e.g., analyses of party systems and voting procedures (voter turnout and other contestation indicators); media analyses (variety, content, sources), analyses of organisation of interests, the variety of sources of information, decision making (e.g. polling expert opinion), etc.

2. Quality of Governance

There are two different notions of quality: one understood in terms of “democraticness” and the other understood in terms of “effective governance”. Criteria-based methods, as described above, are useful in accessing the democratic "hardware" of formal entities, such as the functioning of governmental and institutional orders, but they do not enable data to be gathered on the democratic "software" - the informal day-to-day practices of actors within hierarchies, in network-structures, partnerships and other hybrids.

Interpretative approaches try to capture the different notions of quality by moving beyond the analysis of institutional nodes in order to understand the democratic performance of a wider government “multi-dimensional” network.

Methods include, e.g., Narrative analysis, network analyses or participating observation and qualitative case studies provide routes into the so called democratic software, etc.

3. Quality of public participation

Participation represents and comprises the specific expressions of democratic practice. Its scope may range from very wide definitions including any form of public input to more narrow ones involving a claim for direct democracy and empowerment of the public. As a participative procedure does not only stand for itself, the linkage to government practice and institutional decision making procedures, the effects on political decision making and on polices and their implementation, are additional aspects of comprehensive evaluation of the quality dimension of public participation.

Methods include on the one hand, measuring process criteria, for example inclusiveness, transparency, interaction, continuity and fairness, by discourse and content analysis, monitoring, participating observation, etc; on the other, measuring outcome criteria, such as the incorporation of public views into decision making, resolution of conflicts among competing interests, the increase/decrease of trust in public agencies, representativeness of public opinion by comparative approaches as policy based document analysis, ex post interviews with various stakeholders, media resonance, etc.

4. Quality of e-democracy

The interactive features of digital ICT open up unprecedented opportunities for more inclusive public engagement in the design of policy issues and for the general quality of participation in democratic decision-making. Therefore, our main question is perhaps:

To what extent do digital technologies contribute to the realisation of democratic objectives that both governments and citizens are trying to achieve?

For a start, differentiating between levels of participation is advisable. Three levels of participation focus concretely on the role of ICT’s in digital democracy initiatives: e-enabling, e-engaging and e-empowering. As a further example, based on these criteria, a framework for the comprehensive evaluation of e-democracy initiatives could be:

Key dimensions of e-democracy initiatives:

1. Type of engagement (information-consultation-active participation)
2. Stage in decision-making
3. Actors involved
4. Technologies used
5. Rules of engagement
6. Duration and sustainability
7. Accessibility
8. Resources and Promotion
9. Evaluation and Outcomes
10. Critical success factors (to be agreed on before starting the initiative)

Additionally, the following criteria can be recommended:

11. Gender aspects
12. Understanding of democratic principles, actors’ images of democracy

Generally speaking, tool quality criteria can be distinguished by:

Social acceptability
1. Trust and security
2. Relevance and legitimacy

Usefulness
1. Accessibility
2. Appeal
3. Content clarity
4. Responsiveness

Usability
1. Navigation and organisation
2. Efficiency and flexibility
3. Error recovery

Methods of evaluating the quality of e-democracy include:

Qualitative Methods
1. Semi-structured interviews
2. Field tests of e-democracy tools (incl. usability tests)
3. Online questionnaire
4. discourse analysis
5. analysis of talk policies
6. Internal (government agency) documentation
7. Measuring interactivity
8. analysing log files

Quantitative measuring of online engagement
The e-democracy tools themselves provide evidence of the breadth and depth of their use,measurable in terms of numbers of:
1. Registered users – usage statistics
2. Responses to questionnaires
3. Messages posted to discussion fora
4. Petitions raised
5. Names added to petitions

A further example of evaluating e-democracy is benchmarking:

Benchmarking approaches focus on a supply side measurement of e-participation offerings. Two examples which include a measurement of e-participation in one way or another are:

· The eParticipation Index (United Nations Global E-Government Readiness Report 2005) assesses the quality and usefulness of information and services provided by a country for the purpose of engaging its citizens in public policy making through the use of egovernment programs. As a qualitative assessment of selected government websites based on the relevancy of participatory and democratic services, it should be used with caution. Measurement is based on questions grouped under three categories of e-information; e-consultation; and e-decision-making. Each country is assessed on a scale of 0-4.

· The Citizen Participation Measure (Rutgers-SKKU Report Digital Governance in

Municipalities Worldwide 2005) has been developed as part of an instrument for
evaluating city and municipal websites consisting of five components altogether (the others focus on Security and Privacy; Usability; Content; and, Services). In this case, indicators for citizen participation comprise six questions surveying the presence and functions of municipal forums, online decision-making (e-petitions, e-referenda), and online surveys and polls.

DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF DEMOCRACY AND
POLITICAL AFFAIRS

DIRECTORATE OF DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTIONS

Project «GOOD GOVERNANCE IN THE INFORMATION SOCIETY»

CAHDE (2009) 6 bilingual/bilingue

Strasbourg, 20 January 2009

Glossary of technical terms in the field of electronic democracy
Glossaire de termes techniques dans le domaine de la démocratie électronique

Recommendation Rec (2009) .. of Committee of Ministers to member states on e-democracy
Recommandation Rec (2009) .. du Comité des Ministres aux États membres sur la démocratie électronique

Prepared by the Council of Europe’s Ad Hoc Committee on e-democracy (CAHDE)
Preparé par la Conseil de l’Europe, Comité Ad Hoc sur la démocratie électronique (CAHDE)

The terms defined in this glossary are complementary to those used and defined in the Recommendation and its explanatory memorandum
Les termes figurants dans ce glossaire sont complémentaires de termes qui sont utilisés et définis dans la Recommandation et son exposé des motifs

English	Français	Description	Description
B2G (business to government)	B2G (entreprise à gouvernement)	Relationship between business and government, including information, communication and transaction.	Relations entre les entreprises et les administrations, y compris information, communication et transactions.
blog, weblog	blog/blogue, weblog	Web-based journal with chronological entries, usually created and maintained by a single author, which may be open to comments from other people.	Site web se présentant sous la forme d'un journal composé d'entrées chronologiques, généralement créé et tenu à jour par un seul auteur, éventuellement ouvert aux commentaires d'autres internautes.
budget simulation game	jeu de simulation budgétaire	Electronic game to explore, understand and compare fiscal and policy options of public budgeting.	Jeu électronique permettant d'étudier, de comprendre et de comparer différentes mesures et politiques relatives au budget de l'Etat.
C2C - (citizen to citizen)	C2C (citoyen à citoyen)	Relationship between citizens.	Relations entre citoyens.
C2G (citizens to government)	C2G (citoyens à gouvernement)	Relationship between citizens and groups of citizens on the one side and government on the other, including information, communication and transaction.	Relations entre les citoyens et groupes de citoyens, d'une part, et les administrations, d'autre part, y compris information, communication et transactions.
chat	chat, cyberbavardage/clavardage	Online real-time dialogue between people.	Dialogue en ligne et en temps réel entre des internautes.
chatroom	bavardoir, espace de discussion virtuel, salon de discussion virtuel, clavardoir (Québec), chat, dialogue en ligne	Virtual room where a chat session takes place.	Lieu de rencontre virtuel où se tient une séance de discussion (chat).
content management system (CMS)	système de gestion de contenu	System that supports the creation, updating and maintenance of digital information in order to facilitate the availability of up-to-date information and content.	Système permettant la création, la mise à jour et la maintenance d'informations numériques afin de faciliter la mise à disposition d'informations et de contenus actualisés.
crowdsourcing	développement collaboratif, approvisionnement par la foule	Act of taking a task traditionally performed by an employee or contractor, and outsourcing it to an undefined, generally large group of people, in the form of an open call.	Pratique consistant à faire réaliser une tâche habituellement exécutée par un employé ou un sous-traitant par un nombre indéterminé et généralement important de personnes en lançant un appel public.
data exchange format	format d'échange de données	Agreed way of coding data to facilitate the exchange of information between systems.	Codification des données suivant des règles normalisées, facilitant les échanges de données entre systèmes informatiques.
data interchange format (DIF)	Format d'échange de données	Text file format used to import/export single spreadsheets between spreadsheet programmes.	Format de fichier texte utilisé pour importer/exporter des tableaux entre différents tableurs.
decision-making game	jeu de décision	Electronic game to explore, understand and compare policy-making options.	Jeu électronique permettant d'étudier, de comprendre et de comparer différentes politiques possibles.
digital divide, digital gap	fossé numérique, fracture numérique; clivage numérique	The divide/gap between those who have access to and can effectively use ICTs and those who cannot.	Le fossé qui sépare ceux qui ont accès aux TIC et peuvent effectivement les utiliser et ceux qui n'en ont pas la possibilité.
e-activism	militantisme électronique	Bottom-up political engagement using ICT as a medium to deliver a political message to a larger audience, but also as a tool for organisation and fundraising.	Engagement politique citoyen utilisant les TIC comme un moyen pour délivrer un message politique à un public plus large, mais aussi comme un outil pour l'organisation et la collecte de fonds.
e-advocacy	plaidoyer sur Internet	Mobilisation of citizens to influence public policy and political decisions.	Mobilisation de citoyens pour influencer les politiques publiques et les décisions politiques.
e-ballot	bulletin de vote électronique	The electronic means by which the voter can express his or her choice.	Moyen électronique permettant à l'électeur d'exprimer son choix.
e-business	affaires électroniques, affaires sur Internet	The conducting of business processes via ICTs.	Utilisation des TIC pour mener des activités commerciales.
e-commerce	commerce électronique	Buying and selling of products or services over electronic systems such as the Internet.	Achat et vente de produits ou de services par l'intermédiaire de systèmes électroniques comme Internet.
e-community, community network, virtual community	e-communauté, communauté virtuelle, cybercommunauté, communauté en ligne, communauté électronique, réseau social en ligne	A group of people with a shared interest which meets and interacts in virtual space.	Groupe de personnes partageant un intérêt commun qui se rencontrent et communiquent dans un espace virtuel.
e-forum, e-discussion forums	forum de discussion	Virtual space for online discussion, allowing deferred participation.	Espace virtuel de discussion en ligne permettant la participation différée.
e-electioneering	propagande électorale par voie électronique	E-campaigning in relation to elections.	Campagne électorale s'appuyant sur les TIC.
e-enabling	aide à l'acquisition des TIC	Process to facilitate the acquisition of ICT skills.	Facilitation de l'acquisition de compétences en TIC.
e-learning	apprentissage en ligne	Education or learning supported by ICT	Utilisation d’Internet pour apprendre.
e-health	(services de) santé en ligne	Exploiting the full potential of ICTs in health systems and services.	Exploitation de toutes les possibilités offertes par les TIC dans les systèmes et les services de santé.
e-inclusion	e-inclusion	The enabling of all stakeholders, including, in particular, digitally disadvantaged persons and groups of persons, to easily and effectively use devices (hardware) and technologies (software) necessary for participation in the information society.	Donner la possibilité à toutes les parties prenantes, y compris, en particulier, les personnes et groupes de personnes désavantagées en matière d'accès au numérique, d'utiliser facilement et efficacement les équipements (matériel) et les technologies (logiciels) nécessaires à la société de l'information
e-literacy	alphabétisation numérique	The awareness, skills and understanding necessary for an individual to operate in ICT-supported environments.	La sensibilisation, les compétences et les connaissances nécessaires pour évoluer dans des environnements s'appuyant sur les TIC.
e-lobbying	lobbyisme électronique, influençage (par voie) électronique	Conducting activities aimed at influencing public decision-makers through the use of ICTs.	Activités visant à influencer les décideurs publics au moyen des TIC.
e-movement	groupe d'influence électronique	Lobbying group mainly using electronic means of communication and more specifically the WEB.	Groupe d'influence utilisant des moyens de communication électroniques et plus précisément le web.
e-neighbourhood	voisinage en ligne	Online discussion and exchange in a neighbourhood context in order to foster local participation and to integrate local issues into the political agenda or to find solutions on a local basis.	Discussions et échanges en ligne s'inscrivant dans un contexte de voisinage et ayant pour but de renforcer la participation locale et d'intégrer des questions locales dans le calendrier politique ou de trouver des solutions sur une base locale.
e-ombudsman, e-ombudsperson	arbitre électronique, médiateur électronique, mediateur en ligne, ombudsman en ligne	Online ombudsman service and/or ombudsman on public electronic issues.	Service de médiation en ligne et/ou médiateur chargé des questions d'intérêt public relatives aux systèmes électroniques.
e-panel	panel en ligne, groupe virtuel	Selected group of people who give their views on specific issues over a period of time in virtual space.	Echantillon d'internautes donnant leur avis sur des questions précises dans un espace virtuel pendant une période déterminée.
e-planning	planification (par voie) électronique	ICT- based planning in order to deliver more efficient and accessible information and services.	Planification s'appuyant sur les TIC afin de fournir des informations et des services plus efficaces et plus accessibles.
e-readiness	degré / niveau de préparation aux nouvelles technologies (to be checked)	The ability to take advantage of ICTs, dependent upon resources, competence, infrastructure and legal frameworks.	Capacité de tirer parti des TIC; cette capacité est fonction des ressources, des compétences, des infrastructures et des cadres juridiques.
G2B (government to business).	G2B (gouvernement à entreprise)	Relationship between government and business, including information, communication and transaction.	Relations entre les administrations et les entreprises, y compris information, communication et transactions.
G2C (government to citizens)	G2C (gouvernement à citoyens)	Relationship between government on one side and citizens and groups of citizens on the other, including information, communication and transaction.	Relations entre les administrations, d'une part, et les citoyens et groupes de citoyens, d'autre part, y compris information, communication et transactions.
G4C(government for citizens)	gouvernance pour le citoyen	Concept of citizen-centered governmental service.	Notion de service public orienté vers les citoyens.
GIS (Geographic Information System)	SIG (système d'information géographique)	Electronic system for managing and exploiting data based on geographical locations (spatial data).	Système électronique destiné à gérer et à exploiter des données géographiquement référencées (données spatiales).
GIS-tools	outils SIG	GIS-based applications that provide a variety of services to users.	Applications basées sur le système SIG offrant divers services aux utilisateurs.
Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs)	technologies de l'information et de la communication (TIC)	The study, design, development, implementation, use, support and management of computer-based information systems particulary software applications and computer hardware.	Etude, conception, développement, mise en œuvre, utilisation, maintenance et gestion de systèmes informatiques (logiciels, matériels, etc.).
internet forum jam	remue-méninges en ligne	Online brainstorming session with a very large audience.	Séance de remue-méninges réunissant un très grand nombre de participants.
livestreaming	flux de données en continu	Real-time transmission of audio and/or video data over the Internet.	Mode de transmission en temps réel de données audio ou vidéo via Internet
mash-up	application composite	Web application that combines data from various sources to form an integrated application with a different use.	Application web qui combine des données provenant de plusieurs sources pour former une application intégrée destinée à un autre usage.
metadata	métadonnées	Data that provide information about other data to facilitate the understanding, searching, use and management of data.	Données fournissant des informations sur d'autres données afin d'en faciliter la compréhension, la recherche, l'utilisation et la gestion.
moderation	modération	A way of maintaining rules or standards on a website, particularly in chatrooms and forums, by a person (moderator) who supervises the publication of the information submitted.	Contrôle du respect des règles et des normes sur un site web, en particulier dans les espaces de discussion virtuels et les forums, par une personne (modérateur) chargée de surveiller la publication des informations soumises.
newsgroup	forum thématique en ligne (ou virtuel)	A type of discussion forum implemented as a message archive replicated across servers. Messages are retrieved and posted by news clients communicating with servers using the network news transfer protocol (NNTP).	Type de forum de discussion consistant en archives de messages répliquées sur différents serveurs. Les logiciels clients récupèrent et publient les messages en communiquant avec les serveurs au moyen du protocole NNTP (network news transfer protocol).
netiquette (network etiquette)	nétiquette	Rules of acceptable behaviour in virtual spaces.	Règles définissant les comportements acceptables dans les espaces virtuels.
one-stop portal -procedure -	portail unique, portail d'information	Single entry point for citizens to information and related services on the Internet from different sources.	Point d'entrée unique sur Internet permettant aux citoyens d'accéder à des informations et à des services apparentés fournis par différentes sources.
online surgery	permanence virtuelle	Web application designed to help elected representatives engage with the citizens they represent.	Application web conçue pour aider les élus à dialoguer avec les citoyens qu’ils représentent.
open source software (OSS)	logiciel de source ouverte	Software of which the source code is available to the general public for use and/or modification from its original design free of charge.	Logiciel dont le code source est mis gratuitement à la disposition du public pour utilisation et/ou modification.
open standard (OS)	norme ouverte	An adopted and published standard which may be copied, distributed and used free of charge or for a nominal fee.	Norme adoptée et publiée qui peut être copiée, distribuée et utilisée gratuitement ou contre paiement d'une redevance modique.
podcasting	baladodiffusion, diffusion pour baladeur	Method of distributing multimedia files such as audio or video programmes over the Internet for playback on mobile devices or personal computers.	Méthode de distribution sur Internet de fichiers multimédias tels que des programmes audio ou vidéo en vue de leur écoute ou de leur visionnage sur un appareil portatif ou un ordinateur personnel.
portal	portail d'information, portail internet	Website homepage offering a large collection of resources and services, either internal or external to the site.	Page d'accueil d'un site web donnant accès à un large ensemble de ressources et de services intérieurs ou extérieurs au site.
proprietary software	logiciel propriétaire	Software which is the property of one party, the use of which is made available to a second or more parties, usually under contract or licensing agreement.	Logiciel appartenant à une partie qui autorise une ou plusieurs autres parties à l'utiliser, généralement dans le cadre d'un contrat ou d'un accord de licence.
rich/rdf site summary, really simple syndication (RSS)	RSS, RSS pour "Rich Site Summary"	Online mechanism allowing subscribers to receive regularly updated information on specified topics.	Mécanisme en ligne permettant aux abonnés de recevoir régulièrement des informations actualisées sur des sujets déterminés.
social networking	réseautage social, maillage social	Social networking relates to a category of web applications helping to link individuals who jointly use a variety of tools.	Catégorie des apllications d'Internet pour aider a relier des personnes employant ensemble une variété d'outils.
social networking software	logiciel relationnel	Software that lets people connect, meet, share information and collaborate by use of the Internet.	Logiciel permettant à des internautes de communiquer, de se rencontrer, d'échanger des informations et de collaborer.
spatial data	informations géographiques, données géospatiales	Data describing a point or object by its coordinates in space, usually with reference to the surface of the earth.	Données décrivant un point ou un objet par ses coordonnées dans l'espace, généralement par référence à la surface de la terre.
suggestion tool for (formal) planning procedures	outil de suggestion pour les procédures (formelles) de planification	Web application supporting public participation in formal planning procedures where citizens are invited to comment on official documents within a defined period.	Application web favorisant la participation du public aux procédures formelles de planification, les citoyens étant invités à formuler des observations sur des documents officiels dans un délai donné.
tag	balise	Keyword linked with an element such as a website, a picture or a video, which is subjectively selected as a means of classification, by the person who creates the element.	Mot clé lié à un élément tel qu'un site web, une image ou une vidéo, choisi subjectivement comme moyen de classement par la personne qui crée l'élément en question.
user-generated content	contenu généré par l'utilisateur	Content that is not provided by a website provider but by the users of the offer themselves.	Contenu qui n'est pas fourni par le propriétaire d'un site web mais par les utilisateurs eux-mêmes.
virals	"bouche à oreille électronique"	Method of spreading information from one person to other persons (analogous to a virus).	Méthode de diffusion de l'information d'une personne à d'autres personnes (analogue à la propagation d'un virus).
web 2.0	web 2.0	A perceived second generation of Internet-based services enabling people to collaborate and share information online, not representing a new standard but rather an attitude.	Désignation des services Internet considérés comme "de deuxième génération", qui permettent aux utilisateurs de collaborer et d'échanger des informations en ligne; le web 2.0 est davantage une nouvelle attitude qu'une nouvelle norme.
webcasting	webdiffusion, diffusion sur le web	Provision of real-time or stored video and/or audio data via the Internet.	Mise à disposition d'une émission audio/vidéo diffusée sur Internet, en direct ou en différé.
webcast	émission diffusée sur le web	Real-time or archived recordings of meetings broadcast over the Internet.	Enregistrement d'une réunion en direct ou en différé diffusé sur Internet.
web content management system (WCMS)	systéme de gestion de contenu de site internet	CMS used to manage the content of a website.	Système utilisé pour gérer le contenu d'un site web.
wiki	wiki	Web application that allows users to create and edit content collectively.	Application web qui permet aux utilisateurs de créer et de modifier collectivement des contenus.