INTRODUCTION The adoption of IT by governments has typically been viewed as a four stage phenomenon, starting with the publish

stage, the transact stage, the interaction stage and the integration stage. However, there has been a plethora of changes in technology, legislations and business models that have led to a new paradigm emerging in e-Governance, which I have termed as e-Gov 2.0. The first generation of eGovernance involved 'transplanting' the 'brick and mortar' government into a 'computerised' government without actually leveraging the full potential of technology. In some places, limited business process reengineering helped in higher productivity gains but yet, it did not really leverage technology to anywhere near its full potential. This leads to the concept of e-Gov 2.0 What is e-Gov 1.0 e-Gov 1.0 is characterised by a very limited use of internet technology and is basically dependent on government funding or on limited public-private partnership based on traditional business models. This kind of e-Governance continues to attract limited and indirect participation of the citizens. Thus, citizens continue to play the same role in an e-Governed nation as what their role was in a non-e-Governed nation. Hence democracy continues to be completely an indirect democracy and national legislations, policies and governance per se are all dictated by the elected (or nominated) representatives of the citizens and not the citizens directly. e-Gov 1.0 has a complete absence of pure-play e-Governance solutions. Pure-play e-Governance solutions are those solutions which do no have a brick and mortar equivalent and are completely enabled by the Internet technology. In e-Governance too, it is possible to have pure-play e-Governance solutions such as online land exchange system like the stock market which integrates land sale deed registration and mutation, which would significantly reduce the number of civil litigation sin the courts. However, e-Gov 1.0 has not implemented such solutions. More importantly, e-Gov 1.0 has no significant cross-departmental solutions. There have been some attempts to do systematic process re-engineering to get more benefits out of adoption of technology. However, the process re-engineering did not necessarily leverage the full power of the newer tools of information technology. For example, it did not use Web 2.0 technologies such as Wikis, blogs etc to help create micro-communities of citizens so that citizens could start some limited self-administration. These micro-communities are not necessarily ethnic communities but all kinds of multi-dimensional community. For example, a pregnant, tribal woman who are handicapped could form a community that could ensure that is gets government benefits that the community is entitled as a woman, as a tribal, as a handicapped and as a pregnant woman. Finally, e-Gov 1.0 had no focus on the concept of Service Oriented Administration or SOA. Essentially what SOA implies is that governments should be more dependent on services for revenue generation rather than on taxes. The monopolistic situation of the government gives it enormous revenue generation capability through providing services. For example, if the government provides an online land exchange, it can get the 1% service charge that is typically charged by brokers. In addition, it would help in increasing the number of transactions. Current Challenges of Governance Governance in large countries such as India, Brazil, China, Indonesia etc face many challenges. These challenges are compounded by the fast changes brought in by globalisation and by increasing expectations of the citizens. To begin with, citizens expect a greater say and greater direct participation in governance. Citizens have witnessed how their voice has forced businesses to be more customer friendly but frustratingly, citizens find that their voice is completely lost to the government. The demand for participatory governance is further compounded by the fact that there exist numerous stakeholders. Each such stakeholder has limited visibility to the demands of other stakeholders and hence they bring opposing and sometimes contradicting pressures on the government. The above issues are further complicated by the political and cultural issues. For example, the demand by certain communities to have government websites only in their language is a very difficult expectation to meet. Such demands will become more vociferous once communities understand that they cannot get 'access' to e-Governance since the e-Governance portals are not in their own language which their community members can understand. More critically, it would also lead to the realisation that if the government itself is not supporting their language, then in the new digital world, it is only a matter of time that their language will die away. Such cultural issues thus also become political issues. Also, as discussed in the previous section, there are larger and larger number of micro-communities that are coming up and are aware of their identities. They bring in the challenge of managing infinite number of expectations and requirements.

Finally, while governments claim to be run by rule of law, in the same breath, governments give discretionary powers to their functionaries. In fact, theoretically, if the government is run purely by rule of law, then such law can be programmed and the government can merely be a large computer system with no injustice done. Since this is not possible in a realistic world, therefore, there is a demand for further devolution of power. In India, in response to such demands for devolution of power, the 73rd and 74th amendments were made to the constitution to strengthen the Panchayati Raj Institutions and the urban local bodies. Such devolution of power can be managed only with a strong centralised administration support system supported by IT. Definition of e-Gov 2.0 Given the challenges mentioned in the previous section, there is a need to create new business models, new operational models, new financial models and new technology models. This is captured in Illustration 2 below. e-Gov 2.0 is defined as an evolutionary step towards a more efficient, inclusive and participative government through adoption of a set of new trends in business models, operational models, financial models and technological models. e-Gov 2.0 Business Models If we look at the business world's usage of Internet, the introduction of ICT technology has led to the creation of radically new and innovative business models. We see businesses that are based on smart mobs and co-creation where users are involved in creating and delivering the content and services. We see the emergence of wikis, blogospheres and social networks such as wikipedia, orkut and linkedin. Even the revenue models are radically different from traditional business models. In the next generation of businesses, the customers do not necessarily pay directly for the services. For that matter, even the definition of customer is changing. Similarly, the next generation of e-Governance, i.e. e-Gov 2.0, must explore and adopt radically different business models. Why cannot the e-Governance solutions help in direct participation of Citizens in the business of governance? Why cannot the 100,000 Common Service Centres take polls of people's view on each bill that is passed. Why should the government be largely dependent on taxes as its source of revenue when it has tremendous amount of data that can give it access to new monopolistic businesses ? For example, setting up of a property exchange on the lines of the stock exchange will not only usher in very high liquidity in the land market and help increase the GDP of the country but also bring in substantial revenues to the government that is currently going to middlemen in an imperfect market, with many a transactions landing up as civil cases in the already clogged court system. Some of the online systems are critical for supporting rural commerce such as online e-Emporiums for rural handicraft that creates the trust that is associated with brick and mortar government emporiums. Similarly, one can have online marketplaces similar to e-Bay and Bazee.com. Some of these systems will have fundamental enabling impact of new institutions such as the micro-finance institution. They will also play a critical role in the labour arbitrage market by creating job portals for blue collared workers and facilitating rural to urban migration. Finally, why cannot we involve ordinary citizens in public-private partnership projects? It is assumed that the public in the PPP stands for the government. However, the ordinary citizen is one of the most important stakeholder in the government and hence in order to ensure ownership of the project by this important stakeholder, it is necessary to involve citizens in PPP projects. The possibilities are limitless. Each of these will have a fundamentally effect on the society, altering it positively, while enhancing the revenue of the government. e-Gov 2.0 Operational Models e-Gov 2.0 operational models involve radically different approach to the operations of public service delivery. To begin with, e-Gov 2.0 operational models focus more on the outcomes rather than the output. e-Gov 2.0 operational models focus on purely on the outcome that is the number of students who are getting an IT education and are passing the examinations and the increase in their quality of education rather than the output, which in e-Gov 1.0 was the PC and hardware etc. It also includes regulatory support for the new models. For example, if in the above case, the number of students failing increase due to law

and order or an exceptional tough examination paper, then who is responsible for it? Should the PPP operator be penalised? How do we protect the interest of the students themselves. Similarly, if there is a violation of citizen privacy through leakage of citizen records (on say healthcare which leaks out the diseases of individual citizens), then there would be necessary regulatory frameworks to bring justice to such privacy violations. In the increasingly digital world, it is easier to have the citizen's privacy violated and hence e-Gov 2.0 will focus on such operational issues. e-Gov 2.0 will also focus on capacity building with not only government and other stakeholder agencies but also with citizens. In the absence of such capacity building of the citizens, in an increasingly eGoverned world, more and more citizens will become government services-deprived and would be pushed into an anti-governmental community. Finally, the government will become more sharply focussed on SOA which will have a deep impact on the government processes that will necessarily get re-engineered around the concept of SOA. e-Gov 2.0 Financial Models The financial models of e-Gov 2.0 will move away from taxes as a source of revenue to alternate sources of revenues. Government has the largest advertising real estate. It is quite conceivable that if the government properties are put to good use, they can generate significant amount of advertisement revenues. This includes properties as well as online and postal advertising real estates. Governments have the largest number of touch points with citizens and citizens are the main targets of advertisers. Governments can also redevelop its properties, especially those in prime real estate areas where they may have built residential projects of very poor quality for the government employees or would have poor quality of government offices. The excess real estate generated can be used for annuity based income from rentals which can be given through continuous online bidding for properties that are falling vacant. e-Gov 2.0 Technology Models Technology will play a very critical role in e-Gov 2.0. In an increasingly technology driven government service delivery model, the digital illiterates will end up being governance have nots also. Therefore, it is imperative to have democratisation of technology. Democratisation of technology has several dimensions. The first obviously being digital literacy for all, including adults. Second, access to computing should be non-discriminatory. That is, it should not discriminate against what language, one is comfortable with, what kind of access device one has and what is the paying capacity of the individual. This implies that there needs to be local language support for computing that should be freely available for access to government services. In order for the above to happen, it is therefore, imperative to have open standards for e-Governance. Perhaps, what is more important from a societal perspective is non-discriminatory access to open source software, especially those that are necessary for IT literacy, that is office productivity solutions. This also implies that there is a need for technological sovereignty and independence from vendor lock-ins so that the society can gain from the benefits of reduced cost of access to computing. One of the necessary preconditions for arriving at such a state is to have open standards that are royalty free. Another important component of e-Gov 2.0 technology model would be the adoption of Web 2.0 technologies such as blogs and wikis that would help support micro-communities and help the citizens participate in governance. Such large scale adoption of ICT technologies would have severe implications on the digital infrastructure. To begin with, if in 2008, India had 7.5 million PC's and laptops sold, with on an average, each one consuming 150 Watts of electricity, this adds up to 1.1 GW. That is equivalent to two nuclear power plants. This excludes the electricity consumption of the datacentres and the networks. It is easy to see that in order to sustain such large scale movement to ICT would require atleast 4 nuclear power plants per year in India alone. e-Gov 2.0 technology models will focus on alternate technology models that do not have such debilitating impact on the existing infrastructure and on the environment. Concluding Remarks e-Gov 2.0 will usher in greater citizen participation and will have tremendous uplifitng impact on the economy. Not only will it make the government more efficient by cutting out the non-value added processes but will also increase the efficiency of government's interface with the citizens, businesses and other institutions. It would also enhance the interactions between various stakeholders in the society by intelligent usage of ICT.

However, e-Gov 2.0 will fundamentally be a realisation that the form and substance of governance needs to be changed radically. ICT will act merely as a tool and an excuse to bring in this change. The forces bringing in this change are basically people's expectations of governments delivering more from less and that service delivery needs to be personalised to such an extent that it not only serves microcommunities but perhaps is tailored to the requirements of individuals.