I would like to build with you a concrete vision of “how an ideal govt website 2.0 should look like”.

This vision can be described through quality criteria for ideal govt website. And then transformed into indicators for benchmarking.We like it or not, benchmarking remains a powerful incentive to innovation. I work in the EU Commission, and at international level benchmarking has been a driver of eGovernment implementation – and a reason for many mistakes as current benchmarking focusses on availability of transactional services.

And I believe we don’t have a clear shared idea of what a good govt website should look like in the future. There is some good work on transparency and public data (the power of information, the 8 principles) but not on other aspects.
Here are some sparse (and controversial) features of an idealgovt website 2.0 I would like to discuss:

– users can comment on the govt website to: comment on the service received and help other users with using the service

– users’ search terms appear on the homepage as tag cloud (see delaware.gov)

– collecting service ratings by users ( i dont like it)

– in every page you have an amazon-like service: users who looked at this page also looked at this. Ideally across different public websites!!

– all pages searchable by google (no “robots.txt”)

– strong transparency (see “the power of information”) and extended FOI. For example: all beneficiaries of public funding made public (see farmsubsidy.org). All feedback/ customer satisfaction results published.

– civil servants blogging and facebooking ( i dont like this but let’ discuss)

– citizens contributing to improved decision-making (extending peertopatent.org to other govt fields)

– lots and lots of RSS, also for internal search

– widgets and mashable applications (eGov delivered via iGoogle and Facebook)

– or no portal at all – just a search engine and mash-up?
I would like to make this list as complete as possible. And to discuss the controversial features. For the moment, only considering front-office issues.