There's a lot of good information in this draft paper. Here are some thoughts on how to make it more useful to governments and officials: 1. It includes both (a) advocacy for the idea of open government data, its benefits, etc., and (b) actual how-to guidance. I would explicitly separate those onto two different sections -- what it is, why do it, and then how (as a practical matter) to do it. Right now, there is a lot of blending among those three. 2. Too much World Bank-y jargon, abbreviations. "Enabling conditions". "Supply side" and "demand side". "Interventions". "Capacity building". "Closing the feedback loop." Especially at the working levels of government, that kind of language and taxonomy is off-putting. IMHO, a real how-to paper should be written in clear, concrete terms, leaving elsewhere the theories and abstractions. At least if this doc is actually intended to help people on the ground figure out how, in practice, to provide open government data. This might be a strictly personal stylistic pet peeve, but too many WB documents are written in passive abstraction. I.e., instead of a heading like "Improving public service delivery", I'd much rather see something like "How-to: Give your citizens better public services." 3. The concept flow charts do not enhance understanding. They look right out of a generic powerpoint toolbox. I would ditch and reimagine. 4. The Boxes are promising in the way they interweave real-world examples that reinforce the main points. But the actual formatting within this paper is choppy. It's a really good selection of examples to highlight. There should be hyperlinks where possible.