CLF for the Internet - Collaborative Arrangements

Rationale

These issues fall into areas of responsibility of both the Government Communications Policy and the Federal Identity Program. The TB Secretariat's Service and Innovation Sector has created an interdepartmental working group to examine all identity issues relating to collaborative arrangements and develop solutions for promulgation in the renewed Government Communications Policy.

Interpretation

Institutions of the Government of Canada may visually represent themselves using one of three following identifiers: The institutional signature, the Government of Canada signature, or the "Canada" wordmark. In collaborative arrangements involving more than one Government of Canada institution, the institutions are to be identified by a single Government of Canada signature or "Canada" wordmark. In collaborative arrangements involving many partners, it is advisable to create a separate page dedicated to identifying the participants in order to avoid a confusing presentation of many symbols and logos throughout a Web site.

The decision as to what degree to apply CLF standards to Web sites that involve collaborative arrangements is not straightforward. This is because the GoC is involved in many different types of collaborative arrangements with many different types of partners.

Sites with a gc.ca domain name must apply all CLF standards fully. The gc.ca domain is meant to apply to GoC institutional Internet Web sites, though it is not meant to necessarily apply to all possible Web sites with which a GoC institution is involved.

A GoC institution's primary site and any related sub-sites would be logically expected to use a gc.ca domain designation. This includes sites that could be described as primarily related to program delivery and / or the provision of corporate information.

Collaborative sites with others, such as provincial, territorial or municipal governments, the private sector, etc. should have a different domain designation than gc.ca, such as .ca, .org or .com (e.g. http://www.cbsc.org). On these sites, appropriate CLF standards as they relate to accessibility, collaborative arrangements, cybersquatting, important notices and official languages still apply to the GoC contribution.

Note that GoC institutions must display one of the FIP identifiers thereby achieving a visual presence and balance between the government and its partners. One example might be a portal or gateway site. In this circumstance, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) should be used to define how best to identify the partners' and their contributions. Note that it is the responsibility of the appropriate minister to determine whether or not a particular shared-cost program requires federal identity in its publicity. As and when directed by the minister, a federal institution entering into a contract or agreement with other levels of government or private institutions must include provisions in the contract that set out the terms for joint identification of the partners.

In other collaborative arrangements, the GoC institution may have a lead responsibility. The institution may have funded the design, development and implementation of the site and may host the site server. Other participants may play a minor or limited role, for example as information sources. For such sites, the gc.ca domain name should be used and the CLF standards should fully apply.

2.1 Best Practices

An example of collaborative arrangement: http://www.cbsc.org

A Treasury Board Secretariat publication entitled Stretching the Tax Dollar - The Federal Government As 'Partner' : Six Steps to Successful Collaboration (October 1995) is an excellent reference for public sector managers who find themselves faced with the challenge of providing Canadians with quality services using alternative service delivery mechanisms.

Additional information on collaborative arrangements can be found in the Communications Policy of the Government of Canada.