I think Andrea and I stayed just one step behind and were initially concerned about mere access.

But, definitely, after access is granted, it is not a minor issue how this access is granted.

I’m quite ready to accept defeat, but I would really HATE people forgetting this fact after years of bashing (with a lot of reason) a certain company in the Northeast Pacific coast of the US…

Specially if the subject is as important as e-Government. I believe that any closed technology should not even be considered in the discussion. Maybe it’s just that I’m grumpy…

I sincerely wish you’re right with that and the relationships between citizens and institutions are smoother and, why not, more intensive and balanced :)

I think that devices like the iPad will help blur the boundary between push and pull, between information you get and information you create and share.

No silver bullet, but a decisive shift toward what I call the “symmetry of government 2.0″ (which – in your terms – is the balance between push and pull).

In this sense, what’s the “pull power” of the iPad? Or, in your own words, where exactly is the tipping point where we shift from push/passive to pull/active information managers and how will the iPad help in moving the threshold downwards?

In my own opinion, I see the iPad as a great enabler, but no catalyst.

My contention is that if the iPad is sufficiently compelling as a device, and developers start coming up with very new ways of interacting with increasingly available information, we may get to the tipping point, where people turn from passive information consumer to active information producers (and service co-providers). They will demand more information and more services because they now see the way to make use of those.

Besides that, just including constituencies that because of demographics or attitude toward technology have been on the “wrong” side of the divide would be a great achievement in itself.