Personalized Messageboxes and Mypages A comparison of solutions in EU member states Tim Berkelaar & Rosalie Brasz ICTU 23 mei 2016

Participants Message box: ● Czech Republic (CZ) ● Denmark (DK) ● Germany (DE) ● The Netherlands (NL) ● Sweden (SE) ● United Kingdom (UK) Mypages: ● Denmark (DK) ● Estonia (EE) ● The Netherlands (NL) 2

Topics in the questionnaires ● Functionality ● Architecture ● Development, Operation and Management ● Volume of use ● Legal context / Governance ● EU context 3

Highlights results questionnaire message boxes 4

One directional or bidirectional, domain of use 5 CZDEDKNLSEUK Government to Citizenxxxxxx Government to Businessxxxxx Citizen to Governmentxxx Business to Governmentxxx Private domain communication (two-way)xx NL, SE: two way communication by clicking on a link in the message which opens a web form on the portal of the sending government agency

Notifications 6 CZDEDKNLSEUK XXXXXX SMSXXXX AppX (1) (1) In near future

Centralized service or standards? 7 Centralized serviceCZ, DK, NL, UK HybridScentralized address register, standards for connection of mailboxes Set of standardsDED act, certification scheme

Funding 8 Centralized government budgetCZ (except use in private domain), DK, NL, UK Cross government fundingSE (16 agencies, moving to central funding) PrivateDE

Mandatory use (gov. to citizen/companies) 9 By governmentDE, CZ, DK, By companiesDK, CZ By citizensDK, NL (only tax authority) NoneSE, UK, NL (except tax authority)

Volume of use 10 CZDEDKNLSEUK Operating since Messages sent (in 2015 ) (million) 84-86,5432,7- % of citizens (over 18) with account 1%2%90%50%4%Not appl. % of companies with account90%50k100%Not appl. - Number of gov. Agencies, municipalities using the service 100% (7000)

Observations ● There seem to be two fundamentally different starting points for the secure messaging service: ● Efficiency/service level of government (DK, NL, SE, UK) ● Establishing an electronic alternative to the postal service (DE, CZ) as a national infrastructure ● Large scale use by citizens/companies/government agencies is only seen when use is mandatory ● Cross border interconnectivity of services has not been implemented yet. Is on the agenda in several member states due to eIDAS regulation. No concrete projects yet? 11

Highlights results questionnaire my pages 12

E-service delivery 13 DKEENL Access and referralxxx (limited) Transactionxx Actual deliveryxx (limited) Integration of servicesxxX (limited)

Design of mypage and privacy issues ● Different levels of authentication ● Use and storage of personal data is limited ● Different levels of transparency regarding the use of data ● Sharing data between authorities not via mypage (yet) 14

Volume of use 15 DKEENL Operating since % of citizens (over 18) with account100% 20% in % Q Number of gov. agencies, municipalities using the service all40 mun. 25 gov. ag. All 390 mun. 6 gov. ag. Indications of growthLaunch of improved borger.dk Q3/Q % Q % growth in agencies

Observations my pages ● Level of authentication service level ● Central government mypage vs other “standalone” mypages ● Level of interconnectivity of governmental services differs per country 16

17