Risultati
296 risultati
-
AGID
1. Introduzione e riferimenti normativi
Le presenti Linee Guida, adottate ai sensi dell’articolo 71 del decreto legislativo 7 marzo 2005, n. 82 e successive modifiche e integrazioni (di seguito CAD) e della Determina AgID n. 160 del 2018 recante “Regolamento per l’adozione di linee guida per l’attuazione del Codice dell’Amministrazione Digitale”, stabiliscono le modalità di realizzazione e gestione operativa dell’Indice nazionale dei domicili digitali delle persone fisiche e degli altri enti di diritto privato non tenuti all’iscrizione in albi professionali o nel Registro Imprese (di seguito indicato con l’acronimo INAD) nonché le modalità di accesso allo stesso. L’INAD, ai sensi dell’articolo 6-quater del CAD, è realizzato e gestito dall’AGID (di seguito “Gestore INAD”) che vi provvede avvalendosi di InfoCamere S.c.p.A. quale struttura informatica delle Camere di commercio già deputata alla gestione dell’elenco INI-PEC, di cui all’articolo 6-bis del CAD. Le presenti Linee Guida sono state redatte sulla scorta della seguente normativa di riferimento:. Regolamento (UE) n. 910/2014 del Parlamento europeo e del Consiglio del 23 luglio 2014 in materia di identificazione elettronica e servizi fiduciari per le transazioni elettroniche nel mercato interno e che abroga la direttiva 1999/93/CE [Regolamento eIDAS];. Regolamento (UE) n. 2016/679 del Parlamento europeo e del Consiglio [GDPR];. Decreto Legislativo 13 dicembre 2017, n. 217 recante “Disposizioni integrative e correttive al decreto legislativo 26 agosto 2016, n. 179, concernente modifiche ed integrazioni al Codice dell’amministrazione digitale, di cui al decreto legislativo 7 marzo 2005, n. 82, ai sensi dell’articolo 1 della legge 7 agosto 2015, n. 124, in materia di riorganizzazione delle amministrazioni pubbliche”;. Decreto Legislativo 30 giugno 2003, n. 196 recante «Codice in materia di protezione dei dati personali», come da ultimo modificato e integrato dal decreto legislativo 10 agosto 2018, n. 101 [Codice in materia di protezione dei dati personali];. Decreto del Presidente della Repubblica 28 dicembre 2000, n. 445 recante “Testo unico delle disposizioni legislative e regolamentari in materia di documentazione amministrativa” [TUDA]. ...
-
AGID
7. Disposizioni finali
Le presenti Linee Guida, ai sensi degli artt. 5 e 8 del Regolamento allegato alla citata Determina AgID n. 160/2018:. possono essere soggette a revisione. ...
-
AGID
5. Definizione delle modalità di verifica dei domicili digitali
Al fine della corretta gestione dell’INAD e dell’esecuzione delle verifiche di cui al precedente paragrafo 2.6, i Gestori PEC rendono disponibili al Gestore INAD servizi che consentano di verificare:. lo stato di operatività dell’indirizzo PEC. Analoghi servizi sono messi a disposizione dai gestori dei servizi elettronici di recapito certificato qualificato. ...
-
AGID
Istruzioni per la consultazione pubblica
Le linee guida dell’Indice nazionale dei domicili digitali delle persone fisiche e degli altri enti di diritto privato non tenuti all’iscrizione in albi professionali o nel Registro Imprese sono pubblicate su Docs Italia ed è possibile commentarle su Forum Italia. È possibile inviare i propri commenti fino a 10 luglio 2020 ...
-
AGID
3. Acquisizione dall’INI-PEC degli indirizzi PEC dei professionisti
L’articolo 6-quater, comma 2, del CAD prevede che il domicilio digitale dei professionisti iscritti nell’Indice nazionale dei domicili digitali delle imprese e dei professionisti (INI-PEC) sia inserito anche nell’INAD, fermo restando il diritto del professionista di eleggerne uno diverso, ai sensi dell’articolo 3-bis, comma 1-bis, e dell’articolo 6-quater, comma 2, del CAD. A tal fine, il Ministero per lo Sviluppo Economico avvalendosi del Gestore dell’INI-PEC rende disponibili al Gestore dell’INAD gli indirizzi dei professionisti presenti nell’INI-PEC, tramite servizi informatici le cui specifiche tecniche sono definite in fase di sviluppo del sistema INAD. L’inserimento nell’INAD degli indirizzi elettronici presenti nell’INI-PEC consta delle seguenti fasi:. inserimento e pubblicazione nell’INAD di tutti gli indirizzi PEC presenti nell’INI-PEC. Nel caso di professionisti iscritti a più ordini o collegi professionali è inserito nell’INAD l’ultimo indirizzo PEC cronologicamente dichiarato nell’INI-PEC;. invio a mezzo PEC ai professionisti iscritti nell’INI-PEC della comunicazione di avvenuto inserimento del domicilio digitale anche nell’INAD, con l’avviso che il professionista ha il diritto di eleggerne uno diverso a fini personali, ai sensi dell’articolo 6-quater, comma 2, del CAD, con l’avvertenza che, decorsi 30 giorni dal ricevimento della predetta comunicazione, il domicilio digitale presente in INI-PEC sarà automaticamente eletto altresì in INAD quale domicilio digitale personale, ai sensi dell’articolo 65, comma 5 del decreto legislativo 13 dicembre 2017, n. 217; con la stessa comunicazione il professionista è invitato a verificare ed eventualmente modificare la provincia di residenza per l’aggiornamento dell’INAD e che, in mancanza, verrà indicata la provincia dell’albo a cui il professionista è iscritto. ...
-
AGID
6. Ambito di utilizzo del domicilio digitale
L’utilizzo del domicilio digitale è disciplinato dall’articolo 6 del CAD. ...
-
AGID
2. Indice dei domicili digitali
L’INAD è l’elenco pubblico contenente i domicili digitali eletti ai sensi dell’articolo 3-bis, commi 1-bis e 1-ter, del CAD destinati alle comunicazioni aventi valore legale effettuate dai soggetti privati o dai soggetti di cui all’articolo 2, comma 2, del CAD e, con riferimento a questi ultimi, altresì alle comunicazioni connesse al conseguimento di finalità istituzionali. Il domicilio digitale è l’indirizzo elettronico eletto presso un servizio di posta elettronica certificata, di seguito PEC, o un servizio elettronico di recapito certificato qualificato, come definito dal regolamento (UE) 23 luglio 2014 n. 910 del Parlamento europeo e del Consiglio in materia di identificazione elettronica e servizi fiduciari per le transazioni elettroniche nel mercato interno e che abroga la direttiva 1999/93/CE, valido ai fini delle comunicazioni elettroniche aventi valore legale [articolo 1, comma 1, lett. n-ter del CAD]. Possono eleggere il proprio domicilio digitale mediante iscrizione nell’elenco INAD:. gli enti di diritto privato non tenuti all’iscrizione in albi professionali o nel registro delle imprese e, quindi, all’iscrizione del proprio domicilio digitale negli elenchi di cui agli articoli 6-bis (INI-PEC) o 6-ter (IPA) del CAD. ...
-
italia
1.2. Software covered by these guidelines
In order to dispel any interpretative doubts, in the context of Articles 68 and 69 of the CAD, the terms ‘programs’, ‘solutions’, ‘computer programs’ and ‘ICT solutions’ are to be understood as the same. The subject matter of the obligation laid down by the provision in question is ‘software’. A non-exhaustive list of software thus covered by these guidelines includes the following:. Desktop applications. Mobile applications. Semi-finished applications and components. Frameworks. Libraries. Plug-ins. Operating systems. Websites (front-end and back-end). These guidelines are intended for encouraging the rationalisation of solutions used in sectors/services familiar to public administrations, such as, for example, human resources management, document management and storage, management of decision-making processes, institutional communication and administrative transparency. Furthermore, it is important to note that the term ‘software’, as used in this document, refers not only to the source and/or executable code, but also to all artefacts produced during the process of developing and using software, i.e. documentation, graphical assets, manuals, etc., as explained in Article 69(1) ...
-
italia
1.6. Software compliance with regulations
Reusing software amplifies any selection made within the information technology field and is completely neutral with respect to the quality or lack thereof of selections made. It can multiply the impact of good practice or, in the same way, negatively enhance the impact of erroneous choices whose dissemination is undesirable. In promoting the reuse and dissemination of software over which the intellectual property rights of an administration are emphasised, along with the important economic and efficiency advantage, it is crucial to draw the attention of individual administrations to the importance of the software being reused - as with the entire software range used by each administration - complying with the regulations in force. Since the process of acquiring software for reuse often includes customisations and aggregations of different components, some of which may no longer be in use or were released years earlier, it is important to remember that the verification of full compliance with the regulatory framework remains the responsibility of the administration that reuses the software, since it alone is responsible for decisions taken within the assigned margins of discretion and in accordance with the constitutional principles of good performance ...
-
italia
1.3. Software reuse
The ‘reuse’ of software refers to the set of activities carried out to enable the software to be used within a different context from that for which it was originally created, in order to satisfy requirements similar to those that led to its initial development. The original product is ‘transported’ into its new context, enriched, if necessary, with additional functionalities and technical characteristics that may represent ‘added value’ for its users. Through the combined provisions of Articles 68 and 69 of the CAD, software for reuse is exclusively that released under open licence by a public administration. Therefore, this is a subset of all open source software available for acquisition. These guidelines distinguish, where appropriate, the methods in which public administration software under an open licence is acquired, in comparison to third-party open source software. A fundamental condition of reuse in the context of public administrations is that an administration that ‘reuses’ software receives it free of charge from the transferring administration, and in acquiring it only incurs the costs of its adaptation, not those of design and implementation ...
-
italia
1.4. Subjects of the guidelines
These guidelines are addressed to public administrations referred to in Article 1(2) of Legislative Decree No 165 of 30 March 2001, in compliance with the division of competence referred to in Article 117 of the Constitution, including the port system authorities, as well as the independent administrative authorities of assurance, control and regulation, i.e. ‘institutes and schools of any class and grade, and educational institutions, autonomous state companies and administrations, the regions, provinces, municipalities and mountain communities and their consortia and associations, university institutions, autonomous social housing institutes, chambers of commerce, industry, crafts and agriculture and their associations, all non-profit national, regional and local public bodies, administrations, companies and bodies of the national health service, ARAN (l’Agenzia per la rappresentanza negoziale delle pubbliche amministrazioni - Contractual Representation Agency for Public Administrations) and the agencies cited in Legislative Decree No 300 of 30 July 1999 and CONI (Comitato Olimpico Nazionale Italiano - Italian National Olympic Committee) (for the latter administration, up until the organic review of the regulations for the sector)’. The provisions for the reuse of solutions shall not apply where there are ‘justified reasons concerning public order and safety, national security and defence, and electoral consultations’. With reference to the scope of application of these guidelines, it is hoped that public administrations will use the cooperation and collaboration tools provided by current legislation, such as collaboration agreements provided for by Article 15 of Law No 241/1990, in order to implement co-design initiatives, broadening the sharing of knowledge, decision-making processes and common paths, through, for example, centres of expertise and support throughout the life cycle of the software ...
-
italia
1.1. Purpose and structure of the document
These guidelines are adopted in implementing Articles 68 and 69 of the Digital Administration Code (hereinafter CAD):. as provided for in Article 69(2a), identifying in Chapter 3 Guidelines for software reuse (Article 69), the platform for the publication of source code under open licence and software documentation available for reuse by administrations, specifying the technical methods for use. They also replace the previous Circular 63/2013, entitled ‘Guidelines for comparative assessment provided for by Article 68 of Legislative Decree No 82 of 7 March 2005, the Digital Administration Code’ and its annexes. This document and the methodology described within are to be understood as aids to a decision-making process that remains under the full responsibility of administrations, when they share solutions as well as when they adopt them for reuse in compliance with the regulations in force, in particular with regard to digital public administration, public contracts and the protection of personal data. With reference to the latter area of law, EU Regulation 2016/679 has defined/specified principles and criteria that are particularly relevant with respect to the subject matter of these guidelines. Among these principles and criteria, the requirement to consider data protection from the design stage and by default (Article 25 of the aforementioned regulation) is highlighted. Furthermore, attention should be paid to AgID technical rules that may affect the subject matter, such as the Minimum security measures (Circular 2/2017) and Guidelines for the development of secure software. This document is the starting point of a cultural process in which public administrations are the protagonists for the increasing use of open software, as is evident from Article 69(1), which requires public administrations ‘that own solutions and computer programs created at the specific instructions of the public client’ to ‘make the relevant source code available, complete with documentation and released in a public repository under open licence. . . ‘. Therefore, the aforementioned regulation was the starting point for the preparation of these guidelines, highlighting the vigorous drive of the legislator towards the increasing use of open source software by public administrations. This can be seen from the simultaneous elimination of the provision of the so-called ‘reuse catalogue’, without this preventing, if necessary, public administrations from entering into agreements (for example, on the basis of Article 15 of Law No 241/90) for the reuse of solutions that do not comply with the provisions of Article 69(1) and that cannot fall within the scope of the cases dealt with here, which, it is stressed, must be those that are subject to an open licence. In any case, the legislator, adopting this strong propensity towards open source for public administrations, has reasonably provided for a general exclusion, only for ‘justified reasons of public order and safety, national defence and electoral consultations’ - in Article 69(1), final bullet point - , in order to safeguard those more sensitive areas of digital government of the country, which from the sharing and community management of open software may be exposed to risk. The approach described above, which favours open source, can also be inferred clearly from the wording of Article 69(2), which requires public administrations ‘in project specifications’ to ‘always be the owners of all rights to programs and information and communication technology services, specifically developed for them’. A safeguard has also been provided for in this case, uniquely for circumstances in which ‘this is excessively onerous for proven technical-economic reasons’. Consequently, Article 68 shall be understood and implemented in this document, in full compliance with the aforementioned interpretation of Article 69. Public administrations are in the position to best know their requirements and will be capable of rejecting the methodology proposed here, in relation to its context, as well as to the characteristics of the acquisition to be carried out. In this sense, the guidelines are not merely a regulatory tool, but suggestions for new follow-up, awareness and information processes ...