A clear reason as to why this recommendation should be implemented: http://www.idealgovernment.com/index.php/blog/ukgovernors_vs_governornet_the_legend_of_jack_blacks_forum_is_way_hardcore/ (link)

This really should have been No. 1, IMHO. I reckon there are a lot of people out there with much better ideas of how things should work better.

A key component of such a service though, would be a "campaign filter" to reduce the impact of targeted campaigns. (link)

This recommendation has been especially welcomed by the Advisory Panel on Public Sector Information (APPSI) which is the independent body that advises ministers and the Office of Public Sector Information on exactly that issue: http://www.appsi.gov.uk/ministers/observations-power-of-information-report.pdf (link)

The emphasis for encouraging - and enabling - easier access to PSI should focus (now) on all the major (larger by volume) sectors of information; whether or not they are deemed to be immediately valuable...

The bulk of PSI is deemed to be 'ordinary' and/or 'not particularly valuable'. Once the greater majority of PSI is routinely available, then it will be easier to bring pressure to bear for easier access to the potentially 'high-value' data, like geographic information, etc) access to which is, of course, more contentious.

Let's move the 'cultural view' to a place where easy access to PSI is the norm. Do this for the bulk of less contentious, less valuable PSI first. Then add the more difficult sectors; using the precedent set.

(link)

Cannot find anything about applying Information Assurance methods - that is essential, but central govt repeatedly ignores its own rules. No wonder that we are not impressed. (link)

The report fails to note that the postcode database is owned by Royal Mail, who charge a lot of money for access to it. It's not available to individuals or non-profit groups without deep pockets. This is in sharp contrast to the US, where the equivalent zipcode information is freely available and widely used. (link)