a competitive digital single market egovernment as a spearhead n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
A competitive digital single market – - eGovernment as a spearhead PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
A competitive digital single market – - eGovernment as a spearhead

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 11

A competitive digital single market – - eGovernment as a spearhead - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 156 Views
  • Uploaded on

A competitive digital single market – - eGovernment as a spearhead. Silvia-Adriana Ticau, MEP Rapporteur of the European Parliament for «  A competitive digital single market – eGovernment as a spearhead  » Seamless eGovernment Brussels, 20 December 2011. Where we are?.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'A competitive digital single market – - eGovernment as a spearhead' - avram-murphy


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
a competitive digital single market egovernment as a spearhead

A competitive digital single market –- eGovernment as a spearhead

Silvia-Adriana Ticau, MEP

Rapporteur of the European Parliament for

« A competitive digital single market – eGovernment as a spearhead »

Seamless eGovernment

Brussels, 20 December 2011

where we are
Where we are?

Services Directive(2006/123/EC) – Points of Single Contact (Internal Market)Data protection Directive(95/46/EC)/ privacy-enhancing technologiesDigital AgendaCross border e-government services (the list of 20 basic public services – 2001)e-invoice Initiative/ Directive 2010/45/UE on VAT and common invoice related rulese-procurement (16% of EU GDP) - PEPPOLe-signature Directive(1993/93/EC) – REVISION /Secure eAuthentication systemse-IDM systems - STORK

  • Digital Agenda: Scoreboard shows progress(2010)-Regular Internet Use: 65% of the EU population- 68% of EU households with broadband internet connections-24% of individuals aged 16-74 in the EU27 never used the internetOnline shopping: 40% of EU citizens- e-Government: 41% of EU citizens use e-Government services- 74% of enterprises obtaining information from public authorities' websites and 69% submitting completed forms electronicallyBUT only- Cross-border eCommerce: less than 9% - 26% of SMEs purchase online and 13% of SMEs sell online-between 8% and 41% of enterprises use e-invoices in EU-27
slide3

e-Government interoperability- state of play and barriers

  • eGovernment – 20 basis public services (12 citizens, 8 businesses)
  • 5 leading Member States on full online availability and regarding online sophistication of 20 services: Malta, Portugal, Sweden, Austria, Slovenia
  • Lack of interoperability at the national and European level
  • Lack of EU Interoperability of PKIs
  • Member States use:
    • a single centralized legal framework consisting of a single e-Signature law(17)
    • a holistic e-Government policy implemented in a homogeneous manner throughout all affected sectors (6).
    • a decentralized legal base for e-signature, based on a suitable legal framework an a sector basis(2)
    • an ad hoc legal framework based on e-signature specifically designed for a single application(3)
  • Member States use different models for e-Government applications using electronic signatures:
    • the one-stop shop model
    • the common e-Signature framework model
    • generic CSP model (applications are planned to move to a shared service approach)
    • application specific CSP model.
high impact e government services e procurement systems
High impact e-Government Services e-procurement systems

The average usage of e-Procurement reached in 2009 was 30%

A shift from pre-award systems (e-Notification, e-Submission, tender evaluation) to post-award systems (e-Ordering, e-Invoicing, e-Payment)

e-Procurement – mandatory for government entities and their suppliers

  • SEAP(RO) – introduced at the beginning of 2002
    • Contracting authorities/Providers registered :12,877/37,699
    • Bid notifications/Invitations to the bid published :202,032/299,296
    • Notifications submitted to OJEU :53,527
    • Catalogue based products published into SEAP :343,075
    • Request for proposals/Direct purchases published :69,197/2,511,369
    • Total of the public acquisitions done through SEAP :43,774,340,519.84 RON (~10 bn EUR)
    • Attacks annual average distribution:
      • (53,20% Medium, 44,13% Low, 2,32% High)
      • Medium and high event between 10h and 17h (working hours)
      • 45,89% ICMP, 34,7% TCP, 19,12% UDP, 0,29 Unknown)
  • SKI, ETHICS(DK) – established in 1994, respectively 1995
    • Framework agreements
    • 12,3 mil EUR turnover per framework contract
  • PEPPOL - Public Procurement large scale pilot project
    • 18 partners, 12 countries
    • Connect national public procurement systems
    • completion date : 31.10.2011
    • Budget :30,8 mil euro
    • EU Public Procurement Market : 16% EU GDP ( 1500 bn euro)
  • E-CERTIS
  • Eurostat statistics – 16 DEC 2011 – EU 27, JAN 2011
  • 95% of enterprises had access to the internet
  • 87% of enterprises fixed broadband connection
  • 47% of enterprises mobile broadband connection
  • Obtaining information from public authorities' websites common among EU enterprises
  • Less than 20% of EU enterprises have a website offering online ordering
high impact e government services e i nvoice
High impact e-Government Services e-Invoice
  • e-Invoicing and e-Procurement – mandatory for government entities and their suppliers
  • EU e-Invoicing systems can reduce supply chain costs by 243 billion EUR (European Associations of Corporate Treasures)
  • In EU27 – 400 e-invoicing service providers
  • E-invoice standard data model
  • European Electronic Invoicing (EEI) Framework
  • National For a and European Multi-stakeholder Forum
  • Since 1 July 2008 – all Swedish government agencies must process invoices electronically
  • Since January 2005, Denmark saved about 120 mil EUR/Year with an e-Invoicing system
slide6
High impact e-Government Servicesnational interconnectivity of e-tax, VAT, corporation tax, registration of new company e-Gov systems
  • Interoperability between national and European public administrations – European Interoperability Framework (EIF)
  • Open standards/ Standardization mandates
  • eIDM
  • Cross border recognition recognition of digital signature
  • Data normalization
  • Systems’ integration
  • Collaborative approach
  • Open form of government/ Open Data Strategy for Europe (with full respect of rules on the treatment of personal data) = €40 billion boost to the EU's economy each year.
  • Cross border E-IDM/E-signature
high impact e government services stork eid secure identity across borders linked
High impact e-Government ServicesSTORK – eID (Secure idenTity acrOss boRders linKed)

EU wide interoperability issues

  • Different technical infrastructure and equipment in use
  • Different authentication protocols and procedures
  • Different set of personal data come from different countries
  • Acceptance of trust of personal data came from a foreign country
  • Checking the authorization of a foreign user service provider is required
  • 29 partners, 14 countries
  • National identitity providers linked with national pan-European proxy services (PEPS); system operators of the eID system connected to their PEPS at national level
  • Started in June 2008
  • duration : 3 years
technical aspects of e signature interoperability
TECHNICAL ASPECTS OF E-SIGNATURE INTEROPERABILITY
  • Identifiers in certificates
  • Signature Type
    • A simple signature (non PKI based) can’t be used where PKI based (advanced or qualified signatures) are requested due to the fact that validation processes are not the same.
    • All PKI based signatures can be compatible with the application requirements.
    • it has limited technical means to verify that the eSignature has been created or not by a SSCD
  • Signature Format
    • The signature format used is most of the time based on XMLDSIG or XAdES (ETSI TS 101 903)
    • there are some applications that use the format PKCS #7 (Cryptographic Message Syntax)
    • there are applications that use their own format.
    • to promote the use of international standards
    • Two main signature formats are emerging today:
      • · CAdES (CMS Advanced Electronic Signature) – defines Electronic Signature formats built on CMS (RFC 3852) by adding signed and unsigned signature attributes;
      • XAdES (XML Advanced Electronic Signature) a set of extensions to XML-DSig making it suitable for AES.
  • Signature Validation
    • The limited number of CSPs currently supported by eGovernment applications is a major barrier to interoperability.
    • The client signature tool should use standardized interfaces or applications that are de-facto available on any platform
slide9

Cross border recognition of e-signature(1)

  • There is a definite trend towards the creation of a single centralized e-signature infrastructure, which allows specific applications to simply ‘plug in’.
  • For the evolution of applications to a European e-signature full interoperability service, for signature validation purposes, the most significant recommendation is to set-up a Federation of Validation Authorities (FVA)
  • based on a unique European Validation Authority Gateway (EVAG) that acts between National Validation Authorities (NVA) of states.
  • But not all states will set-up a NVA; in this situation, it is proposed to set-up a Generic Validation Authority (GVA) at the European level
slide10

Cross border recognition of e-signature(2)

  • A future FVA established at the European level requires :
    • common norms and standards to be applied by the VAs to classify certificates and/or signatures;
    • common communication protocols to be used between the VAs to validate certificates;
    • compensations to be paid between participating VAs for the use of their validation services;
    • guarantees to be provided by the VAs to ensure their solvency and accountability;
    • quality of service, including guarantees in relation to availability;
    • liabilities to be accepted by the VAs in relation to each other;
    • guarantees and liabilities should be defined in relation to certificates, signatures, services provided by the VA, supported CAs, and quality of service
slide11
Thank You!

silviaadriana.ticau@europarl.europa.eu

TRAN and ITRE Committees

STOA Panel

of the European Parliament