Wiki-правительство: Как технологии могут сделать власть лучше, демократию – сильнее, а граждан – влиятельнее - Бет Новек

32. Конгресс в 1994 г. принял Закон об открытом правлении, обязывающий правительство проводить заседания федеральных агентств при открытых дверях, т. е. быть открытым для общественности. Закон затрагивает деятельность 50 учреждений, в том числе большинства регулирующих комиссий, и предусматривает создание нормативной базы для обеспечения открытости. Но требование открытости заставляет сотрудников, которые не связаны этими нормами, проводить заседания при закрытых дверях. Government in the Sunshine Act, P. L. 94–409, 90 Stat. 1241 (1976), codified at 5 U. S. C. 552 (b).

33. OMB Watch, “21st Century Right to Know” (www.ombwatch.org/article/archive/551 [November 2008]).

34. Freedom of Information Act, P. L. 89–487, 80 Stat. 250 (1966), current version at 5 U. S. C. 552 (1996).

35. Paperwork Reduction Act, P. L. 104–13, 109 Stat. 163 (1995), codified at 44 U. S. C. 3501–3520.

36. Darrell M. West, “Global Perspectives on E-Government,” in Governance and Information Technology: From Electronic Government to Information Government, edited by Viktor Mayer-Schönberger and David Lazer (MIT Press, 2007), p. 19.

37. The Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (P. L. 110314) provides for the creation of a public database.

38. Jerry Brito, “Hack, Mash, Peer: Crowdsourcing Government Transparency,” Columbia Science and Technology Law Review 9 (2008): 119–122.

39. В докладе Университета Мичигана утверждается, что администрация следующего президента должна подтвердить свою приверженность расширению доступности правительственной информации услуг в Интернете. См.: National Quality Research Center, American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI). Согласно заключению центра от 28 октября 2008 г., E-Gov Satisfaction Index показывает высокую удовлетворенность граждан работой электронного правительства.

40. См.: www.public.resource.org/index.html (October 2008).

41. Carl Malamud, “The Importance of Being Edgar” (mundi.net/cartography/EDGAR/index.html [December 2008]).

42. James Grimmelmann, “Copyright, Technology, and Access to the Law: An Opinionated Primer,” June 17, 2008 (james.grimmelmann.net/essays/CopyrightTechnologyAccess [December 2008]).

43. Данные должны быть полными, предварительными, своевременно полученными, ясными, доступными для машинной обработки, недискриминационными, не связанными с правами собственности и нелицензированными. См.: “Got Data?” (wiki.opengovdata.org/index.php/OpenDataPrinciples [October 2008]).

44. David Robinson and others, “Government Data and the Invisible Hand,” Yale Journal of Law and Technology 11 (Fall 2008) (papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers. cfm?abstract_id=1138083 [October 2008]).

45. Web Content Managers Advisory Council, “Requirements Checklist for Government Web Managers” (www.usa.gov/webcontent/reqs_bestpractices/reqs_checklist.shtml [October 2008]).

46. См.: W. David Stephenson, “Automated Data Feeds Make Smart Regulation Possible Now” (www.huffingtonpost.com/w-david-stephenson/automateddata-feeds-make_b_128208.html [October 2008]).

47. Curtis W. Copeland, “Electronic Rulemaking in the Federal Government,” Congressional Research Service Report RL3421018, October 16, 2007 (www.opencrs.com/document/RL34210 [October 2008]).

48. См.: Darlene Meskell, “New Opportunities for Involving Citizens in the Democratic Process,” GSA no. 20 (Fall 2007): 2–4. См. также: Stephen Frantzich and John Sullivan, The C-Span Revolution (University of Oklahoma Press, 1996).

49. EPA Geospatial Data Access Project (www.epa.gov/enviro/geo_data.html [October 2008]).

50. National Neighborhood Indicators Partnership (www2.urban.org/nnip [October 2008]).

51. Cindy Skrzycki, “1,700 Pages of Rules, Fewer Dead Trees,” Washington Post, December 18, 2007, p. D3.

52. OMB Watch, “21st Century Right to Know,” p. 10.

53. См.: www.pugetsound.epageo.org/ (October 2008).

Глава 6

1. См.: Sam Peltzman, Political Participation and Government Regulation (University of Chicago Press, 1998); H. Margaret Conway, Political Participation in the United States (Washington: CQ Press, 2000).

2. James O. Freedman, “Crisis and Legitimacy in the Administrative Process,” Stanford Law Review 27 (April 1975): 1056.

3. Gerald Frug, “The Ideology of Bureaucracy in American Law,” Harvard Law Review 97 (April 1984): 1333.

4. Administrative Procedure Act, ch. 324, 60 Stat. 237 (1946) (codified as amended in scattered sections of 5 U. S. C.).

5. Beth Simone Noveck, “The Electronic Revolution in Rulemaking,” Emory Law Journal 53 (2004): 455, n. 98.

6. Cornelius M. Kerwin, Rulemaking: How Government Agencies Write Law and Make Policy (Washington: CQ Press, 1994), p. 116.

7. Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U. S. C. sec. 553 (c).

8. Thomas Jefferson, letter to Samuel Kercheval, July 12, 1816, in Classics of American Political and Constitutional Thought, edited by Scott J. Hammond, Kevin R. Hardwick, and Howard L. Lubert (Indianapolis: Hackett, 2007), p. 745.

9. Cary Coglianese, “The Internet and Citizen Participation in Rulemaking,” Working Paper RWP 04–044 (Harvard University, Kennedy School of Government, 2004), p. 7.

10. Marissa Martino Golden, “Interest Groups in the Rule-Making Process: Who Participates? Whose Voices Get Heard?” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 8 (1998): 250–264.

11. Peter L. Strauss, “ABA Ad Law Section’s E-Rulemaking Survey,” Administrative and Regulatory Law News 29, no. 3 (Spring 2004): 8.

12. Environmental Protection Agency, “Controlling Power Plant Emissions: Public Comments” (www.epa.gov/mercury/control_emissions/comment.htm [October 2008]).

13. Cameron Scott, “9 Seconds,” SFGate.com, October 23, 2008 (www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfgate/detail?blogid=49&entry_id=31846).

14. Federal Advisory Committee Act, P. L. 92–463, 86 Stat. 770 (1972) (codified at 5 U. S. C. App. 2).

15. Negotiated Rulemaking Act, P. L. 101–648, 104 Stat. 4976 (1990) (codified at 5 U. S. C. secs. 561–570); см. также: Phillip J. Harter, “Assessing the Assessors: The Actual Performance of Negotiated Rulemaking,” New York University Environmental Law Journal 9 (2000): 32–56.

16. «[Затем] агентство принимает решение о формировании комитета по соглашению норм, агентство публикует в Federal Register и при необходимости в торговых или других специализированных изданиях замечания, включающие… список лиц, отстаивающих эти интересы, и лицо (или лиц), представляющее агентство». 5 U. S. C. sec. 564 (a) (4) (1990).

17. National Research Council, “Public Participation in Environmental Assessment and Decision Making” (Washington: 2008), pp. 3–9.

18. Cary Coglianese, “Assessing the Advocacy of Negotiated Rulemaking: A Response to Philip Harter,” New York University Environmental Law Journal 9 (2001): 386–447.

19. Christopher Mooney, The Republican War on Science (New York: Basic Books, 2006).

20. Thomas McGarity and Wendy Wagner, Bending Science: How Special Interests Corrupt Public Health Research (Harvard University Press, 2008).

21. J. B. Ruhl and James Salzman, “In Defense of Regulatory Peer Review,” Washington University Law Review 84 (2006): 1–61.

22. Ibid., p. 25.

23. Presidential Commission on the Space Shuttle Challenger Accident (Rogers Commission), Report of the Presidential Commission on the Space Shuttle Challenger Accident (Washington: GPO, 1986), appendix F.

24. Sheila Jasanoff, The Fifth Branch: Science Advisors as Policy Makers (Harvard University Press, 1990), p. 61; см. также: Joshua B. Bolten, “Issuance of OMB’s ‘Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review,’” Memorandum M-05–03, Office of Management and Budget, December 16, 2004.

25. Government Accountability Office, “Federal Research: Peer Review Practices at Service Agencies Vary,” GAO/RCED-99–99 (1999).

26. См., например, следующие публикации: “Peer Review: EPA Needs Implementation Procedures and Additional Controls,” GAO/IRCED-94–98 (1994); “Peer Review: Reforms Needed to Ensure Fairness in Federal Agency Grant Selection,” GAO/PEMD-94–1 (1994); “Peer Review: Compliance with the Privacy Act and Federal Advisory Committee Act,” GAO/GGD-94–48 (1991); “Federal Advisory Committees: GSA’s Management Oversight and GAO Comments on Proposed Legislative Amendments,” GAO/T-GGD-89–1 (1998); “Federal Advisory Committee Act: General Services Administration’s Management of Advisory Committee Activities,” GAO/GGD 89–10 (1988); “University Funding: Information on the Role of Peer Review at NSF and NIH,” GAO/WED-87-87FS (1987). См. также: Lars Noah, “Scientific ‘Republicanism’: Expert Peer Review and the Quest for Regulatory Deliberation,” Emory Law Journal 49 (2000): 1034–1083.

27. Mohammed Kashef, “Scientific Peer Review in the Public Sector,” 2005 (dotank.nyls.edu/communitypatent/peerreview_dec05.pdf [October 2008]).

28. Bolten, “Issuance of OMB’s ‘Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review.’”

29. American Association for the Advancement of Science, “Another Decline for EPA R&D in 2009: AAAS R&D Funding Update on R&D in the FY 2009 EPA Budget” (www.aaas.org/spp/rd/epa09p.pdf [October 2008]).

30. Information Quality Act, P. L. 106–555 app. C, 114 Stat. 2763A-154 (2000); “Guidelines for Ensuring and Maximizing the Quality, Objectivity, Utility, and Integrity of Information Disseminated by Federal Agencies,” republication, 67 Federal Register 8452 (February 22, 2002).

31. Ibid.

32. Stephen M. Johnson, “Junking the ‘Junk Science’ Law: Reforming the Information Quality Act,” Administrative Law Review 58 (2006): 37–80.

33. Mooney, The Republican War on Science, p. 103.

34. Jasanoff, The Fifth Branch, pp. 69–76; Wendy E. Wagner, “The ‘Bad Science’ Fiction: Reclaiming the Debate over the Role of Science in Public Health and Environmental Regulation,” Law and Contemporary Problems 66 (2003): 67–71; Sidney A. Shapiro, “Politicizing Peer Review: The Legal Perspective,” in Rescuing Science from Politics: Regulation and the Distortion of Scientific Research, edited by Wendy Wagner and Rena Steinzor (Cambridge University Press, 2006).

35. Bolten, “Issuance of OMB’s ‘Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review,’” p. 6.

36. Alan Charles Raul and Julie Zampa Dwyer, “‘Regulatory Daubert’: A Proposal to Enhance Judicial Review of Agency Science by Incorporating Daubert Principles into Administrative Law,” Law and Contemporary Problems 66 (2003): 7 (утверждая, что принципы Дауберта должны применяться к административным органам, они считают, что «оставлять этот вопрос на рассмотрение судей будет менее уважительным, но зато более важным с позиции науки»)см. также Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U. S. 579 (1993).

37. E-Government Act of 2002, H. R. 2458/S. 803, section 206.

38. Beth S. Noveck, “The Electronic Revolution in Rulemaking,” Emory Law Journal 53 (2004): 433.

39. Daniel C. Esty, “Environmental Protection in the Information Age,” New York University Law Review 79 (2004): 172.

40. См.: Stuart W. Shulman and others, “Electronic Rulemaking: A Public Participation Research Agenda for the Social Sciences,” Social Science Computer Review 21 (2003): 163–64; Code of Federal Regulations 36, sec. 219.9.

41. Government Accountability Office, “Electronic Rulemaking: Efforts to Facilitate Public Participation Can Be Improved,” GA-03–901 (2003).

42. Cary Coglianese, “Citizen Participation in Rulemaking: Past, Present, and Future,” Duke Law Journal 55 (2006): 954.

43. Orly Lobel, “The Renew Deal,” Minnesota Law Review 89 (2004): 342; for a citation, см.: Paul S. Berman, “Global Legal Pluralism,” Southern California Law Review 80 (2007): 1155.

44. См., например: David Schoenbrod, Saving Our Environment from Washington: How Congress Grabs Power, Shirks Responsibility, and Shortchanges the People (Yale University Press, 2006).

45. Breaking the Logjam (www1.law.nyu.edu/conferences/btl/index.html [October 2008]).

46. Angus Macbeth and Gary Marchant, “Improving the Government’s Environmental Science,” New York University Environmental Law Journal (forthcoming) (available at www1.law.nyu.edu/conferences/btl/index.html).

47. Cass R. Sunstein, Infotopia: How Many Minds Produce Knowledge (Oxford University Press, 2006).

48. См.: Kenneth J. Arrow and others, “Statement on Prediction Markets,” AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies, May 2007 (http://ssrn.com/abstract=984584 [October 2008]); эти авторы определяют рынки предсказаний как «рынки контрактов, которые дают выплаты, основанные на результатах неопределенного события в будущем, такого, например, как президентские выборы»; см. также James Surowiecki, The Wisdom of Crowds (New York: Anchor Books, 2005); Sunstein, Infotopia.

49. Steve Lohr, “Betting to Improve the Odds: Companies Use Prediction Markets to Funnel Ideas from the Work Force,” New York Times, April 9, 2008, p. H1.

50. Iowa Electronic Markets (www.biz.uiowa.edu/iem/ [October 2008]); Hollywood Stock Exchange (www.hsx.com [October 2008]).

51. Media Predict (www.mediapredict.com [October 2008]).

52. Kluster (www.kluster.com [October 2008]).

53. Philip Tetlock, Expert Political Judgment: How Good Is It? How Can We Know? (Princeton University Press, 2005).

54. Roberto Unger, What Should Legal Analysis Become? (London: Verso, 1999), p. 39.

55. Gary E. Marchant and Andrew Askland, “GM Foods: Potential Public Consultation and Participation Mechanisms,” Jurimetrics 44 (2003), p. 101.

56. Ibid.

57. См.: Beth S. Noveck and David R. Johnson, “Breaking the Logjam: An Environmental Law for the 21st Century,” New York University Environmental Law Journal, 17 (2009).

58. Danah Boyd, “Can Social Network Sites Enable Political Action?” in Rebooting America, edited by Allison Fine and others (New York: Personal Democracy Press, 2008).