NSDI Future Directions Governance for the National Spatial Data Infrastructure

1. NSDI Future DirectionsGovernance for the National Spatial Data Infrastructure

2. Strategic Objective - Governance By 2005, options for restructuring the governance model of the NSDI to make it more effective and inclusive are identified, evaluated and acted upon.

3. Accomplishments • Charter Completed • 29 member team organized • 6 Working Groups organized • Bi-weekly teleconferences • Bi-monthly face to face meetings • Nov, Dec, Feb, April, June

4. Scope of Assignment • Looking Out – *** • Integrate Fed, State, Local, Utility, academic and private interests; • Budget; • Authority • Looking In – • organize working groups, subcommittees, and production teams of FGDC and NGPO. -

5. Working Groups • Documents • Current Models • International Models • Interviews • Outreach • Documents

6. What is Meant by NSDI Governance The organizational structure, leadership and authority roles, and all associated regulations, policies, and procedures for management, coordination, and operation of the NSDI.

7. Key elements of Governance • Underlying legal mandate • Responsibilities and Roles • National Policies and Strategy • Coordination across all Sectors • Establishing NSDI Architecture and best Practices • Reviewing and recommending geospatial activities • Leadership/authority • Accountability • Budget • Stability

8. Why should we govern? • Improve services • Coordinate public resources • Economic development • Improve management of natural and human resources • Provide effective response to emergencies • Improve defense and security capabilities

9. $$ Improve Services to Citizens $$ Coordinate Public Services to Help Guide Development $$ Improve Management of Natural and Human Resources $$ Provide Effective Public Safety and Response to Emergencies Why should we govern? Local Governments Academic Institutions Federal Agencies State Agencies Private Sector NSDI

10. FGDC Steering Committee too far removed Little coordination or sharing of information Duplication of effort Data and information gaps are not being addressed Recognize same problems exist at Federal, state and local levels Business practices Lack of comprehensive national strategy Federal credibility Lack of authority and accountability Many governance pieces FGDC still primarily Federal Unclear roles and responsibilities Private sector involvement in governance Current Problems / Issues

11. Factors to Consider In a Governance Process • National approach • Right level of decision-makers • Bias to successful active participants/players • Builds in accountability • Simple - to avoid confusion • Inclusive - Fed, state, local, private, academia • Bold step • Clearly defined roles & responsibilities

12. Strawman Governance Models Option 2 - Key Elements • Would establish an Autonomous National Mapping Organization with responsibility for national base mapping and related service provision and partnerships. • New organization would be financially self-supporting through sales of products and services, licenses for data and interagency contracts for specific essential federal data and services • Would establish a Governing Board that provides strategic directions and budgeting. Board would include senior federal officials, 1 or more elected official, and non-government officials • Base data programs could be limited to 1:24K scale and smaller or could extend to large scale including cadastral and land records/registration • FGDC would continue as a Federal Coordinating body for other geospatial data and programs

13. Consolidated National Base Mapping Program centralized operations for Framework base data (compilation and update) Map, Data, and Related Service Provision Provides wide range of useful analogue and digital data products and online applications and services (portal approach) External Partnerships and Programs Management of external licenses, joint projects, re-seller relationships, etc. State Governments National Mapping Liaison City & Municipal Govt’s Tribal Governments County Governments Federal Agencies Utilities Regional Councils Professional Associations Non-Profit Organizations Private Sector/Industry Academia Option 2 Governing Board representation from Federal Agency and non-governmental organizations Congressional Oversight Committee OMB National Mapping Organization (new, autonomous Federal agency with self-supporting financial status) The National Mapping Organization gets source information from these organizations (particularly larger scale data) and incorporates it into products. Data are provided from the National Mapping Organization

14. Strawman Governance Models Option 3 - Key Elements • Would establish new entity through combination of existing and new organizations • Four Phased Option • Phase One – Establish a National Geospatial Coordinating Council thru non-statutory authority – role would be national policy applications, standards and implementation. • Phase Two – Strengthened FGDC federal leadership role through new Presidential Executive Order. • Phase Three – Uniform State Coordinating Councils that represent state, local and state/regional interests through Gubernatorial Executive Orders • Phase Four – New Legislation similar to that described in Strawman Option 1.

15. Option 3 FGDC with Core Staff State Coordination Councils with Core Staff USGS NSF TVA State Government NASA NARA County Governments LOC GSA City & Municipal Govt’s FCC DHS Regional Councils EPA HHS Academia DOT DOE Utilities DOS DoD Non-Profit Organizations DOJ DOC Private Sector DOI USDA Professional Associations Local Federal Field Units OMB Phased Implementation National Geospatial Coordination Council Presidential Appointed Director (with Core Staff support) Functions: GOS/RAMONA/Standards National Applications Tribal Governments National Non-Profit Organizations NSGIC NASCIO NACo URISA ASPRS NGA WGA Etc. National Trade Groups MAPPS OGC GITA

16. Big Ideas so far - from co-lead • States, locals want a seat with a vote • Private sector wants to be involved • National not federal leadership • More accountability and Leadership needed • Need financial authority • From financial markets • From federal budgets • Model 2 is DOA • Self financing • Competetion with private sector • More OMB involvement

17. Talk to Me • Are we going in the right direction? • What are the Issues we need to consider? • What suggestions do you have for a new governance model • Looking Out • Looking In

18. Contact • Volunteers requested to participate in review process. If interested please give us your name. • Contact Information: • Dennis Goreham • Alan Voss: 423-751-2425 awvoss@tva.gov • For additional information: fgdc.gov/future directions (click on Action Teams)

19. Objectives for today’s session • Establish a greater level of understanding regarding issues and options for Governance Models for the National Spatial Data Infrastructure • Solicit input and ideas on the NSDI governance process, structure and key elements • Gather information to feed into the development of recommendations

20. Current governance model - Key Elements • OMB Circular A-16 created FGDC as interagency coordinating body and to facilitate implementation of NSDI. FGDC organizationally is within USGS • A-16 provides guidance to Federal agencies for coordination of geographic information. Executive Order 12906 also provides NSDI guidance • Department of Interior Chairs FGDC, OMB is Vice-Chair • A-16 requires partnership programs with stakeholders for NSDI • Stakeholders are very important to but not members of FGDC

21. FGDC voting members with Core Staff NSGIC NSF TVA OGC NASA NARA ACSM LOC GSA GITA FCC DHS ICMA EPA HHS NACo DOT DOE NLC DOS DoD WGA DOJ DOC UCGIS USDA STIA DOI URISA Current Governance Model A-16 OMB S T A K E H O L D E R S FGDC Secretariat USGS

22. What are we governing? Some thoughts… • Geospatial information (production, maintenance, distribution?) • Processes that develop and use geospatial information • The infrastructure at a national scale • Standards, policy, technology, and resources to acquire, process, store, distribute and improve utilization of geospatial information

23. Challenges Ahead • Roadblocks between and among Federal Agencies and/or other levels of government • Political - GOS Board, other “governing bodies” • Communicating outside the geospatial community • Funding • “You’re not the boss of me.” • Defining the levels of governance - control, support, guide, facilitate, ratify or certify, facilitate policy development, etc.

24. Discussion • Three Strawmen Governance Models are shown to generate ideas and open discussion. Discussion should concentrate on: • Issues and options for Governance Models for the National Spatial Data Infrastructure • Input and ideas on the NSDI governance process, structure and key elements • Information to feed into the development of recommendations • Discussion is not limited to only Three Strawmen Options –other ideas, options, or combinations are encouraged

25. Strawman Governance Models Option 1 - Key Elements • Proposes new Legislation which would: establish and maintain geospatial preparedness through the NSDI as a national priority; require conformity with standards adopted through voluntary consensus processes; and establish a grant program to assist in implementing the NSDI and achieving geospatial preparedness. • Would establish a National Geospatial Coordinating Council (NGCC) through new legislation. • NGCC would be responsible for national NSDI policy, implementation,and interoperability issues. • NGCC Executive Director would be Appointed by President • NGCC Membership would include representatives of all sectors. • FGDC would be focused on Federal Coordination responsibilities of A-16. • Grant Program for NSDI implementation and adherence to standards and NSDI practices proposed for funding of $500M/year. A stable funding base for FGDC, NGCC and standards would be proposed.

26. Next Steps • Data Collection (in progress) – Oct. 04 to April 05 • Literature Review • Research of existing models • Outreach focus groups, workshops and interviews • Synthesis and Analysis – Feb and April, 2005 • Identify 2 - 4 models to consider • Identify criteria to apply • Analyze Models and implementation requirements • Feedback from Stakeholder Groups – March through May 2005 • Report – June 2005

27. Option 1 FGDC with Core Staff USGS NSF TVA NASA NARA LOC GSA FCC DHS EPA HHS DOT DOE DOS DoD S T A K E H O L D E R S DOJ DOC City & Municipal Govt’s County Governments State Government DOI USDA Tribal Government Utilities Regional Councils Professional Associations Non-Profit Organizations Private Sector/Industry Academia OMB National Geospatial Coordination Council Presidential Appointed Director (with Core Staff support) Functions: GOS/RAMONA/Standards National Applications Members: Chair-Federal Vice Chair-Federal FGDC – 3 Members 5 Members each from: