The Greater London Authority’s responses to national government consultations relating to adult education, skills, and employment provision.

The Department of Justice Canada (Justice Canada) conducted broad-based consultations on potential reforms to the Security of Information Act (SOIA), Criminal Code and Canada Evidence Act (CEA) aimed at strengthening Canada’s toolbox to respond to foreign interference (FI). The consultation process consisted of an online consultation that solicited feedback from the general public, as well as a series of roundtable discussions with Provincial, Territorial and Indigenous partners, various stakeholders representing diverse communities across Canada, members of the legal profession, academia, civil society organizations, and industry. There is overall support for the new proposed FI offences under the SOIA and a strengthened maximum penalty for preparatory acts in the SOIA and its expanded application to other SOIA offences; and a modernized sabotage offence under the Criminal Code. There was mixed feedback on proposed amendments relating to how national security information is protected and used in criminal proceedings, with some general commentary that processes need to be streamlined, including to avoid undue delays in judicial proceedings. Beyond legislative reforms, Justice Canada heard the call for the Government to better engage and communicate with the public on FI, notably with diverse communities across Canada.

The Mozambique Public Consultation Process on the Revision of the National Landy Policy is an initiative of the National Land Policy Review Commission. The consultation is designed to record citizens' view on land administration, as well as the current land policy and legal reform processes. Data is collected on existing land documentation, community delimitation, land transactions, land governance, perceptions of community capacity to deal with land administration and conflict, and perceptions of the state's respect for land rights.

This dataset includes a complete record of the 36,066 public comments submitted to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) in response to notices of proposed rule-making (NPRMs) implementing the Dodd-Frank Act over a 42-month period (January 14, 2010 to July 16, 2014). The data was exported from the agency’s internal database by the CFTC and provided to the authors by email correspondence following a cold call to the CFTC public relations department. The source internal database is maintained by the CFTC as part of its internal compliance with the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) and includes all rule-making notices that appear in the Federal Register. Owing to the salience and publicity of the Dodd-Frank Act, the CFTC made a special tag in its database for all comments submitted in response to rules proposed under the authority of the Dodd-Frank Act. This database thus includes all comments which the CFTC considers relevant to the Dodd-Frank reform. In short, the CFTC gave t..., This dataset was exported by the CFTC from their internal database of public comments in response to NPRMs. The uploaded file is the exact raw data generated by the CTFC and provided to the authors. An updated version of the data file including the author's classifications based on the organization value will be uploaded when the related work is accepted for publication., , # Dodd Frank Financial Reform at the CFTC - Public Comments, January 14th, 2010 to July 16th, 2014

Description of the data and file structure

NOTE: The Comment Text ( and variables) are longer than the maximum character count of Microsoft Excel cells (32,767 characters). All analysis should take this into account and import the .txt file directly into your analysis program (R, Stata, etc.) rather than attempt to edit or modify the data in Excel before using computational analysis.

There are two files provided:

1. DoddFrankCommentsAll(uncompressed).txt - the full raw data file from the CFTC internal database of all 36,066 comments on NPRMs
2. (2014-07-30) CFTC Original Codebook.xlsx - the codebook provided by the CTFC with the raw data. Originally provided as email text, formatted in Excel by authors.

Codebook:Â

| Variable | Explanation ...

Pearson’s correlation coefficients for comparisons of consultation response topics across administrative levels and municipality types for 97 rights topics.

Data from the following digital consultation campaign: "Le statut de Paris"

The consultation was open on Madam Mayor, I have an idea! from January 26 to February 16, 2016.

In a context of profound territorial and institutional reform, including the creation on January 1, 2016 of the Métropole du Grand Paris, the Parisian municipality wished to initiate the construction of the community Parisian of the 21st century. This project was based on three axes: merging the city and the department, grouping the arrondissements, giving back to the city its powers.

The key for all Parisians: more effective and more economical public action public authorities, a new democratic impetus and a distribution of powers finally understandable by all.

This project to modernize and standardize the status of Paris is based on one method: consultation.

A group working group open to the 20 mayors of the arrondissements and to all the presidents of the political groups of the Council of Paris met regularly to discuss and develop this approach. This reform, which requires a legislative amendment, was examined by Parliament (National Assembly and Senate) in 2016.

Parisians also had their say. Also, to feed this debate and the proposals that the Mayor of Paris has addressed to the Government with a view to changing the status of Paris, Paris wished to engage in consultation with Parisians so that they express their expectations and their proposals.</ p>

South Africa’s wildlife sustainable management requires cohesive, evidence-based policy development that balances conservation goals with socio-economic needs. This study employed the Policy Delphi methodology, based on subsequent questionnaire rounds, to gather expert insights on critical priorities for wildlife-related policy, focusing on four species: lions (Panthera leo), elephants (Loxodonta africana), rhinos (Diceros bicornis and Ceratotherium simum), and leopards (Panthera pardus pardus). Experts were divided into panels based on species and areas of expertise: hunting, management, translocation, research, and animal welfare. Through three rounds, which took place from March to July 2024, the study sought to pinpoint South African policy issues needing amendment, addition, or removal, gathering expert opinions to achieve 70% consensus and suggestions for integrating these into policies. A total of 60 experts accepted to participate, 14 compiled all three Delphi questionnaires, while 40 of them contributed to at least one round. In Round 1, 34 experts suggested 523 pertinent issues meeting the study criteria: 260 amendments, 233 additions, and 30 removals. In Round 2, 28 participants considered 363 issues relevant, of which 254 obtained final agreement in Round 3 by 19 experts, divided into 19 thematic categories. Moreover, in Round 3, 617 suggestions for integration into policies were collected. Overall, the analysis underscores that the experts preferred modifying existing policies rather than removing measures, emphasizing the adequacy of the policies with adjustments. The final list of issues confirmed at the end of Round 3 and their categories represent experts’ priorities for the four focus species management reforms in South Africa. Moreover, the insights highlight gaps in South African wildlife legislation, including improved definitions, consideration of local communities, and addressing data deficiencies for evidence-based management and conservation. By identifying key areas for legislative improvement, this study provides a framework for actionable strategies to enhance wildlife policy in South Africa, following the broader aim of protecting wildlife, and with the potential of having an impact beyond national boundaries.

Submission to the Consultation on the GST treatment of cross-border transactions

Barnet-rådets medarbejders svar på DEFRA's høring om reform af det britiske emballageproducentansvarssystem. Indsendt den 13. maj 2019

Submission to the SCC Arbitration Rules 2017 and the SCC Expedited Arbitration Rules 2017 Consultation

South Africa’s wildlife sustainable management requires cohesive, evidence-based policy development that balances conservation goals with socio-economic needs. This study employed the Policy Delphi methodology, based on subsequent questionnaire rounds, to gather expert insights on critical priorities for wildlife-related policy, focusing on four species: lions (Panthera leo), elephants (Loxodonta africana), rhinos (Diceros bicornis and Ceratotherium simum), and leopards (Panthera pardus pardus). Experts were divided into panels based on species and areas of expertise: hunting, management, translocation, research, and animal welfare. Through three rounds, which took place from March to July 2024, the study sought to pinpoint South African policy issues needing amendment, addition, or removal, gathering expert opinions to achieve 70% consensus and suggestions for integrating these into policies. A total of 60 experts accepted to participate, 14 compiled all three Delphi questionnaires, while 40 of them contributed to at least one round. In Round 1, 34 experts suggested 523 pertinent issues meeting the study criteria: 260 amendments, 233 additions, and 30 removals. In Round 2, 28 participants considered 363 issues relevant, of which 254 obtained final agreement in Round 3 by 19 experts, divided into 19 thematic categories. Moreover, in Round 3, 617 suggestions for integration into policies were collected. Overall, the analysis underscores that the experts preferred modifying existing policies rather than removing measures, emphasizing the adequacy of the policies with adjustments. The final list of issues confirmed at the end of Round 3 and their categories represent experts’ priorities for the four focus species management reforms in South Africa. Moreover, the insights highlight gaps in South African wildlife legislation, including improved definitions, consideration of local communities, and addressing data deficiencies for evidence-based management and conservation. By identifying key areas for legislative improvement, this study provides a framework for actionable strategies to enhance wildlife policy in South Africa, following the broader aim of protecting wildlife, and with the potential of having an impact beyond national boundaries.