a competitive digital single market egovernment as a spearhead n.
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

  • 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?.

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

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)
  • 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
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
  • 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

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

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
Thank You!


TRAN and ITRE Committees

STOA Panel

of the European Parliament