8-FZ: I will tell you what the site of the authority should be

    On January 1, a law enters into force on the territory of the Russian Federation , introducing a number of requirements for the official websites of authorities, which is designed to become a desktop for virtual fighters with the system and web developers working with the authorities. For the first time in Russian law, the definition of the official website of an authority is given. For the first time, standards for filling sites are set at such a high level. So what should be the site of the authority?

    We will make a reservation right away that the law itself is not entirely devoted to Internet sites, but introduces a new institution for providing citizens with information on the work of state bodies. Internet issues are considered in the context of ensuring open and unhindered access to these data (see note 1).

    So what is the official website of the authority?


    First and foremost, the law defines this concept. An official website of a government agency is an Internet site containing information on the activities of the authority, the electronic address of which includes a domain name, the rights to which belong to the authority.

    As you can see, the definition is quite successful - subdomains and subdirectories on web servers will also fall under the concept of an official site. True, for the sake of completeness, it was still worth telling what a "site" is. But, apparently, this is already an axiomatic concept.

    Please also pay attention to the fact that the domain name should be registered with a government agency, and not with an IT employee, the head of the agency, or Vasya Pupkin, the son of a farm owner.

    If the authority of the site does not have


    Nothing wrong.

    The law allowed local authorities (the level of municipal districts) not to have a website if they decide to post information about their activities on the website of a higher authority (at the regional level). Also, authorities at the level of settlements (villages, hamlets, villages, towns) can publish their information on the websites of the district level.

    But we must strive for this.

    Because Article 10 of the law states that “state bodies, local self-government bodies use the Internet in which they create official websites to post information about their activities.” It is not clear from the text of the law whether the body will be punished for the lack of a site, but a hint is made quite transparently that it is better to have a site.

    I also note that all authorities above the district level should have their own sites. No contradiction to this statement was found in the law.

    What should be on the site?


    At first I wanted to bore the reader with a lengthy copy-paste from the law, but then I changed my mind. The whole range of information that should be located on the site is listed in article 13 of the law ( read ).

    The list is quite complete and now a citizen will be able to reproach the body for substandard content (see important note 2).

    The authorities did not restrict the set of information, allowing them to post "other information about their activities." This probably means that on the websites of the authorities we will still meet with news from the life of the runway "Edinaya Rossiya" (sarcasm).

    Clause 3 of Article 13 indicates that the composition of the information posted on the site is determined by the relevant lists of information. Apparently, the authorities should adopt internal documents establishing these lists in accordance with the law. In the list of posted information, periods of updating and obsolescence of information (!) Are also established, i.e. you can make claims for irrelevant content.

    Summarizing, we can say that the priority Internet tasks for government agencies now are as follows:

    1. Assign a domain to an authority.
    2. Adopt internal documents on the operation of the site (resolution \ order on the official site, the provision on the official site, a list of information posted on the site).
    3. To approve the structure of the site in accordance with the law, to make changes to the content of existing resources.
    4. Profit.


    Pros for the authority


    They are. In response to a request for the work of a state body, officials can quite officially spit on you with a link to the site or even not answer at all (!) If the requested information is posted on the Internet (Articles 19, 20).

    On the one hand, it’s a shame, on the other hand, government agencies have an incentive to fill the site in order to save time for applicants' answers. In general, the state is beginning to understand the benefits of the Internet.

    The main thing is that the information could not be hidden (as was the case with the lack of links to documents or a mixture of Cyrillic and Latin letters) However, the law notes that the site should work in accordance with the technical and linguistic requirements for information systems, and at least formally there is a lever for influencing dishonest bureaucrats.

    Another plus for the authority. If the body does not have a website, it is obliged to provide within its walls or public places (libraries, etc.) the conditions for familiarization with information about its work. If a site is available, then this is not necessary (Article 17).

    In this case, distant villages, not burdened by the attention of providers and the poor, suffer. Let us leave this to the conscience of the authors of the law and hope that the generalization of Internetization will suddenly cover us, because the law indirectly obliges to this, in which lies

    Minus for the authority


    Clause 2 of Article 10 instructs the government to create in Internet places (in the premises of authorities, local authorities, state and municipal libraries, other accessible places for visiting) Internet connection points for access to its website.

    I think that this provision of the law will not work, because the requirements for such an item are not clear. Should it be a full-fledged workplace? Or maybe a (demon) wired access point? Maybe an information kiosk? How many users should this item serve at the same time? How to take into account the costs of operating such an access point, because the law does not allow you to charge for access to the official site? There are many questions and the law does not give answers to them.

    Status of citizen request sent over the Internet


    Previously, authorities could ignore requests sent over the Internet, as there was no legislative basis for giving them any status and the authorities independently determined what to do with such appeals. Now, an electronic request for information about the work of the body is equivalent to a written one and should be taken into account in a general manner (Article 18, paragraph 9).

    Contradictions


    About misunderstandings with the equipment of access points to the network has been said above.

    And now about the email. Article 10 obliges you to post on the website email addresses where you can send a request, and paragraph 1a of article 13 states that the email address of the authority is indicated “if available”. How it turns out, I did not understand.

    What gives developers


    It is possible to offer the authorities additional services to bring the sites in line with the law, scaring it to enter into force soon. True, work will have to be done in emergency mode if the customer’s fright is great. It’s better to work calmly with those in need, I’m far from thinking that on January 2, 2010 some kind of repression for bad sites will begin.

    The 1C-Bitrix company has already understood how to get a little more money from the budget and through its partners is promoting a “turnkey solution for the authorities” called the “Authority Portal” in four configurations, filled with necessary and approximate information. I’ll add from myself that the market initiative is right, but the level of performance suffers. With the exception of the finished site structure, there is nothing to take from this “portal”. And the "information content" consists mainly of the news pulled on the network. You all know the prices for this turnkey solution without me. Bitrix partners will take from above "for implementation and support." About "ready-made" solutions on other CMS is not heard. The choice is up to the authorities, convince her that it is you who will make a good site.

    Link


    http://www.rg.ru/2009/02/13/dostup-dok.html

    Notes


    1. It should distinguish a citizen’s appeal with a question from requesting information about the activities of a state agency. Work with appeals is regulated by other laws, in particular 59-ФЗ “On consideration of citizens’ appeals ”.
    2. Please note that if a site was previously determined for placing information about the order and it could have nothing to do with the official site, now the official site should at least indicate where exactly such information is posted on the Internet.


    Alexey Poroshenko specifically for Habrahabr.


    Also popular now: