Discussion Group A Following introductions, facilitator Dennis Lewycky expressed the hope that participants would be able to agree on a statement of five principles by the end of this breakout session. He noted that on the way to the hall, he had passed some construction workers on the road pouring cement into wooden forms. "Isn't that what our principles are?" he asked. "They are the molds that will define what the information highway will look like." After an initial discussion about the fact that new technology has been dropped into a pre-existing social context, the facilitator interpreted the comments to mean that "people should come first" when the infobahn is being designed. "That's really important," said a participant from an environmental group. "The question is 'why are we creating this highway? þ who is it going to serve?' The technology shouldn't rule us. It should be adapted to our needs rather than us having to adapt to the technology." A participant asked if there were any environmental concerns that should be addressed, which may have been overlooked when yesterday's discussion drifted towards rural issues. A participant from an environmental group responded that this issue would require a study of the materials and processes used in the creation of hardware related to the information highway. She also suggested that laying the foundations of the highway might entail a lot of waste. "What are we doing with the old phone lines that are being replaced by fibre-optics?" she asked. "What is this costing the environment?" The delegate who raised the issue suggested that there is also a need to compare the environmental impacts of "doing the same thing in different ways." Is the environment affected differently when people use e-mail rather than couriers or tele- commute rather than physically commuting? A delegate from a trade union then asked if the new electronic communications would affect the larger structural conditions which underlie the environmental crisis. It's possible, he suggested, that the information highway might have a bearing on questions of population, on levels of resource con- sumption, and on the phenomenon of poverty in less industrialized nations, which is considered to be the driving force behind rainforest destruction. Some participants expressed concern that the issues were getting too large to be able to deal with constructively, but facilitator Dennis Lewycky said it is good to put one's concerns on the table. He cited the words of a "prairie sage" who said: "You won't get to where you're going unless you know where you're going." Another delegate said the new information technology has to have a concrete economic function in order to be useful. In practice, he said, the economic impact of the technology to this point has been negative. "Because of this technology more people will be sitting on the sidelines þ corporations are using this to put people out of work," he asserted. "We have to ask: What are we going to do with this technology? Who is it going to serve þ the 30 percent of the population who are still working?" He added that there is little being offered over the Internet that would create a broad marketplace or a meaningful transfer of services from producers to consumers. "Aside from phone sex, what is there that people can consume?", he asked. This led to a more abstract discussion of the Internet's characteristics as "an amorphous It". The facilitator suggested that the participants' difficult task was to take a vague, undefined, and largely unbuilt entity (the Internet) and define it as a force for social good. He asked what basic statements of principle would help bring that definition into focus. A delegate suggested that the information highway is not being constructed to serve "the greatest good" since "we are not constructing the information highway þ the multinational corporations are. We're just trying to get a little space on it. And we have to insert ourselves in the process to make sure we're not governed by someone else's agenda." He also questioned whether, within a greater hierarchy of priorities, ensuring universal access to the Internet is as important as campaigning, for instance, for the preservation of universal health care. Several participants suggested that, if this technology becomes as crucial a part of the culture as telephones, the entire population should have the right to use the Internet and to have a voice in how it is used and for what purpose. A panelist who teaches business at a university added that, whether it is government or big business which builds the Information highway, it is the public who will (directly or indirectly) be paying for its construction, and so the public should benefit and have a role in shaping it. The question of how to define "universal access" to the Internet proved problematic. One participant asked: "If universal access to health care means building a hospital in each community, what does universal access to the information highway mean? Does the government say: 'here's a coupon þ go to Future Shop and buy yourself a computer?' Or does it mean that we have a public access terminal in every library?" There was a long discussion about whether a connection to the Internet is becoming as essential to social and economic participation as the telephone, or whether being plugged in is still a matter of personal choice. "Having a telephone is optional," said one delegate, "but it's hard to function in society without it. We're not at that point yet with the new technology, but most people here think we soon will be." A delegate said that half of the information highway is built, and much of it was paid for with general revenues. "So we should demand a place on it and universal access," he said. Another delegate said the information highway infrastructure is like the sewer and water lines built into a new sub-division: municipalities put the infrastructure there and people expect to be hooked up. The facilitator said that the rules for constructing the information highway are an important public interest concern because they will affect future generations. "Ninety years ago," he explained, "we didn't know how many people would be using automobiles, but if we had planned the introduction of the automobile, the environmental impact would have been less. We're in a position to do things differently now." A participant said demands on time must be examined. She said that responding to e-mail, for instance, "makes it harder to actually get around to doing your work". A business professor responded that this is a "filtering" problem. There is now a device available for $50,000, he said, that will sort your e- mail, voice mail, and fax communications, and arrange them according to priority in different "envelopes". The environmentalist said that this illustrates the disadvantageous position of voluntary organizations. They don't have the budgets to keep up with rapid improvements in technology, and have to function with second-rate equipment. A participant from rural Ontario said the group should address this matter in its statement of principals. "We have to say that the technology should enhance the quality of life, rather than detract from it," she said. Another participant said it is important to distinguish between communication systems on the 'Net, and mere entertainment services. "My fear is that, as more entertainment services come in, communications will be marginalized", he said. "We have to state that people have the right to communicate over the Internet, rather than just passively receive information." Another participant endorsed this view, suggesting that while "the companies want lots of outward capacity and the ability for the public to e-mail back" (so that people can order and pay for goods and services from corporations) "what we should push for is a greater two-way symmetry." A delegate said that the issue of the 'Net's effect on quality of life has to be seen in the context of what is a broader social crisis. Traditionally, he explained, tech- nologically-driven improvements in productivity have led to more leisure time. But increased productivity driven by information technology has had the opposite effect. "Some people are being worked to death, while others are starving because they're out of work," he said. This drives home the need, the delegate concluded, to call for a social policy framework that will make sure the benefits of technology (i.e. enhanced productivity) are enjoyed broadly th- roughout society. The facilitator encouraged the group to express its quality of life concerns as directly as possible. "To say that technology should enhance the quality of life is a principle that would scare the hell out of some technocrats," he said. "But it is something we take as a responsibility." A participant suggested going back to basics and explicitly stating that the public has the right, in the first place, to enter into the debate over the use of technology. "The companies who think they own this technology will likely say 'screw off, it's ours and we'll decide how to use it'", he predicted. Once average people are engaged in the debate, the delegate continued, they should vow that their role in the debate will reflect comm- unity values. Concerns arose around the right to privacy. That right may be violated by companies who want to scan the Internet and bombard people with junk mail, said one participant from New Brunswick. But another participant said that using the Internet implies a forfeiture of some privacy. "If you post something on the Internet, you override your privacy", she said. "If you send something out, you run the risk that people will use it in a way you didn't intend." Another delegate pointed to the erosion of the idea that "snooping has always been looked at as something illegal". He explained that "the US government is now selling personal information it compiles as a way of trying to pay down its defi- cit." A delegate who works as a writer and editor pointed towards the "strong Internet culture which resists junkmail" as "the best defense at present against that kind of abuse." But he also said the Internet poses special problems because the ability to communicate to multiple users blurs the distinction between private and public communication. One participant said it is important to state the right to privacy as a principle because "that gives you the basis to say to chip manufacturers that you can't make a back door so that you can de-encrypt certain information." United States law enforcers developed the Clipper chip to gain information through this means if they have a subpeona. A delegate remarked that "it's funny that we want access to all the information in the world but we also want the maximum privacy. It's difficult to reconcile the two." The delegate from a university business department said there are "real concerns" about privacy issues and stalking. At his institution, female faculty can log on with code names, so that potentially dangerous system users are not tipped off about what their location is at any given time. He added that bad behaviour can often be effectively checked by revoking access privileges to people who violate a system's code of ethics. After a short break, facilitator Dennis Lewycky directed the group back to the task of arriving at a series of principles to take back to the rest of the conference. He asked if there were any points raised which could be stated as principles. A delegate said it might be difficult to agree on any universal truths because the group had not spent long enough together for members to get an adequate sense of each others' value systems. The facilitator mentioned that in another group (dealing with a different topic), it had been easy to find common Canadian values that shaped the group's approach. One panelist expressed resentment at the use of nationalist categories to define attitudes. He said that individual people hold different values, regardless of where they live. The facilitator offered a clarification, and then suggested that the group could pinpoint their common convictions if they would take a piece of paper and write down the two principles that were most important to them. The group took several minutes to do this, and when they were finished the facilitator wrote all their statements down on several large sheets of paper at the front of the room. He then asked if there were any glaring contradictions between any of the 21 statements that he had copied down. A delegate suggested that the principle that the Internet be unregulated was inconsistent with the desire to protect the right to privacy. Another participant stated it would be difficult to influence the form of the highway in any way if there was no provision for regulation. Several members of the group then interpreted the statement about keeping the information highway "unregulated" to mean that no one would claim ownership and thereby restrict use. A further potential difficulty, according to one delegate, lay in the statement that the information highway should not diminish (but possibly enhance) all existing social rights. He believed that if property rights were seen as being among those rights, then the commitment to keep the information highway free and open would be in contradiction to the statement, because it would restrict the right to consolidate private control. When the group examined which principles had been mentioned a number of times, they found that public access was most often cited. The right to privacy was also a common goal. Many other statements were found to fall under the general rubric of using the information highway to improve quality of life. A question emerged about who would regulate the information highway so that these principles would be followed. When a delegate asked who currently regulates electronic communication, she was told that the CRTC takes responsibility for some areas but not for content. There are no Canadian content restrictions on electronic networks, for instance. There was a general consensus that offensive content, such as child pornography or hate literature, is dealt with by the existing laws of the land. The same laws apply to posting this type of material on the Internet as apply to publishing. The problem is enforcement: one delegate mentioned, for example, that the huge volume of foreign material flooding onto the net makes it difficult to screen for offensive content. One delegate from New Brunswick remarked that "there are community police on the Internet to enforce codes of ethics". She explained that most newsgroups have moderators to screen content, and members of newsgroups often complain or split off if they have concerns about quality of content. This has happened spontaneously. "I think we can all agree," said another delegate, "that we don't want to leave it all to the corporate sector to regulate." But who would take on that regulatory role? A participant suggested that the CRTC may provide a good model, because it gives public interest groups the opportunity to attend hearings and influence policy. A discussion ensued about why regulation is needed at all. It was suggested that existing laws would be adequate to deal with illegal activity such as stalking and spreading hate. But one delegate predicted that, if regulation were left in the hands of the corporations, the goals of universal access and affordability probably would not be met. Another participant said it should be explicitly stated that there be a formal mechanism to ensure public access to the information highway. This position should be used to counter the statement that the corporations are likely to make, to the effect that competition itself will assure access. A consensus began to emerge that the group's statement of principles should be used as guidelines to help a public regulatory body uphold "the public good". The facilitator added that even business accepts the need for regulation so as to uphold standards and so provide a basis for public confidence. A delegate stressed that the regulatory structure should be open to diverse and regular public input, so as to avoid the possibility that a detached and moribund bureaucracy would start making policy in a vacuum. "There needs to be a dialogue," he said. "We need to constantly advise government. Public interest relies upon a collage of things coming from the public." A delegate returned to the question of what the new information highway would look like. There was general agreement with his suggestion that a "basic" system - to which public access is guaranteed - should include e-mail, newsgroups, and bulletin boards where information can be posted. Another participant added that funding programs - such as those in Ontario designed to build infrastructure by setting up FreeNets þ should be extended to include programs dealing with content. Networks exist, he said, but there is too little funding available to develop the content packages to make them more usable. The facilitator summarized the group's six statements of values: * The information highway should take environmental impacts into account. * It should be universally accessible. * It should be based on two-way communication rather than one- way information flow. * The technology should improve quality of life and should benefit society as a whole. * The technology should be driven by community demand. A sub- theme to this is that a basic system of e-mail, bulletin boards, and newsgroups should be openly and publicly available. * All of the above should be subject to a system of social regulation. Discussion Group B [Writer's Note: There was one portion of the day's proceedings during which the discussion group split into two smaller groups. This report is not wholly inclusive of the proceedings from those smaller groups.] Prior to commencing the work of today's discussion session, Michael Deloughery asked participants if they had any comments or reflections on what had occurred yesterday. One participant stated that one consideration which had not arisen, but which would likely grow in the future relates to the ascendancy of the French and English languages in Canada. Deloughery suggested that the group try to articulate five or six principles that would guide the development of community access to the information highway. The group would then attempt to cultivate proposals to guide decision makers in light of those principles. One participant stated that the day's discussion was an opportunity to express concern over the composition of IHAC. He expressed concern that government would construct an elitist framework to regulate the information highway, based upon input elicited solely from the corporate sector. Some participants debated the merit of using the conference time in this manner. Deloughery suggested that there was potential for the proposals coming out of today's discussion to serve as one means of influencing this particular process. There was some deliberation about the context, vis a vis principles in general or principles focused on community access. The ensuing process of clarification led to participants defining a number of principles. One participant stated: "On the whole I think principles are person-centred and any one person is a member of a number of communities." She added that, in terms of the conference topic, connectivity is a basic human right. Another participant added that inclusion for everyone was a guiding principle. Accessibility for all was another suggested principle. This sentiment was echoed by another who said he thought the information highway should ensure access to all, "regardless of where you are, race or creed." "I go for a basic quality level of accessibility" said another participant. He also admonished that principles should be simple but not so general so as to be useless. Another participant spoke with respect to people in rural areas (some of which still use party lines). She cautioned that any continued preoccupation with technological advancement must be preceded by a basic degree of access. One group member stated that principles, ethics and values are intermingled. He paraphrased Ralph Waldo Emerson, saying that a person's self-concept is only half of their identity, and the other half of a person's identity is what that person expresses. Another member stated that the main principle for him was expression, but that it was also very important to have Canadian content on the information highway. One delegate stated that "values reflect what we hold in common" and what we value is allowing people to make decisions in their own lives. A participant declared, "I look at principles as being guidelines rather than laws". No one (governments or other organizations) has the right to control others. He added that "the 'Net will tend to control itself". Another delegate said that principles are a statement of values which inform practice and policy. In terms of the information highway, one consideration is the need for technology to facilitate communication and not take the place of human interaction. Another group member added that the matter of a code of ethics calls for some discussion, but that he was unsure of how to put that into practice. One participant said that it was her experience that people do not always follow the principles they express. She advised that unless people feel strongly about something, it should be left unsaid. An anti-poverty activist stated that his expressed guiding principle for the information highway was that it help to promote equality and social justice. Deloughery then suggested that the group break out into two smaller groups to further refine a statement of principles. Before this occurred, one participant asked whether the principles should be related to the development of the information highway in general or to the development of community access. He stated that he thought the latter provided a tighter focus. Another participant responded, saying that previous discussion focused on the development of community access as a global human process, and the human context would be a practical guide for discussion on the development of the information highway. Deloughery added that the context is about community access and there are broader issues that have a direct impact upon community access. The two smaller groups then worked towards distilling the principles they had enunciated into a more succinct statement of what the whole group believed the information highway should look like. Much of the discussion that ensued in the small groups centred around a definition of principle and the most practical manner in which to state principles in order to facilitate action or response. Once the group reconvened as a whole, there was discussion about several issues. One participant raised the issue of barriers to access. He said that some effort should be made to eradicate existing barriers and ensure no new barriers arise. Participants discussed the community development situation faced by ethnic groups which must decide whether or not to communicate in their own language. Communicating in a language other than English would allow specific ethnic groups to talk to one another but it would eliminate an opportunity to share with other cultural groups. One participant pointed out that there are ways to include other people in the specific interest of a smaller community. An issue voiced by one group member was the frustration of articulating a collection of ideas which may not be going anywhere. He asserted that the group should identify measurable things to achieve. Deloughery acknowledged participants' concerns. He also reminded them that they were involved in a pioneering effort, and that the issues raised at this conference would need further illumination at some point. The group then attempted to coalesce the efforts of the two smaller groups into one unified statement. Group B arrived at a statement of four principles as follows: * The information highway has to be organized in a way that reflects the ethics of business, government, and the community equally. Each of these stakeholders should be publicly accountable. * Development of community access to the information highway should be driven by the community rather than by technology. * Access to a basic level of quality service should be available to everyone (including private telephone service lines, e-mail addresses, and public space). * There needs to be a group of proactive programs to remove barriers and create opportunities. After a short break, Deloughery moved the group into an exercise to facilitate the development of a list of proposals or recommendations to policy makers (politicians and bureaucrats). The group brainstormed ideas according to Deloughery's guidance, and arrived at the following catch-phrases: * Broadcast Benefit (a public relations/marketing campaign); * Cheap Unmetered Phone Lines (affordable telephone services); * Nurture FreeNet; * Tell the People About Networks; * Improve Basic Level of Telecommunication Infrastructure; * Change Regulatory Environment to Encourage Connectivity; * Cheap Long Distance for Remote Communities; * No Charge for Government Information; * Use It; * Re-Engineer Voting/Referenda; * Remember Grassroots; * Fund Citizens'/Residents' Self-Help; * Give Equal Access to All Communities; * Democratize Decision-making; * Government Intervention Measurable, Accountable to Community. Following the brainstorming of these catchphrases, the participants grouped them into categories. The categories and the titles ascribed to them are as follows: * Spread the Word: Broadcast Benefit, Tell the People About Networks; * Make it Affordable: Cheap Long Distance for Remote Communities, Cheap Unmetered Local Phone Lines; * Free the Space: Remember Grassroots, Nurture FreeNet, Fund Citizens'/Residents' Self-Help, Give Equal Access to All Communities; * Build It For Everyone: Improve Basic Level of Telecommunication Infrastructure, Change Regulatory Environment to Encourage Connectivity; * Use It: No Charge for Government Information, Use It, Re- Engineer Voting/Agenda; * Make it Democratic and Accountable: Democratize Decision- making, Government Intervention Measurable and Accountable to the Community. The titles given to the categories of catchphrases combined to form six recommendations. Thus, Group B had arrived at six recommendations or proposals to guide policy makers in developing community access to the information highway: * Spread the Word (be part of a marketing effort); * Make it Affordable (especially long distance, as well as local); * Free the Space (government take the role of safeguarding the community); * Build it For Everyone (identify two potential areas of an unlevel playing field); * Use It (a way to model how technology can be used in an appropriate way); * Make it Democratic and Accountable. Deloughery surveyed the group to ensure that the six recommendations were deemed adequate in conveying essential guidance to policy makers. He acknowledged that there was much more detail that could elaborate the recommendations. He also suggested that the group consider approaching those members of IHAC who were in attendance at the conference. This suggestion was made in light of the concern expressed by some participants in relation to the decision-making influence of this body. The group had some debate as to whether to make recommendations or have direct input to the composition of IHAC. The debate concerned the usefulness of political action at this conference. One participant alluded to the Council's impending dissolution and asked if there was another venue to broadcast what has been done at the conference. Another participant stated that there will be other opportunities to apply leverage that would be more effective than the official conference report. A warning was offered that the imbalance of composition of IHAC in favour of the corporate sector would be perpetuated if action was not taken to change this situation. The group adjourned its discussion for the day. Discussion Group C The session started with a discussion of whether the terms Internet and information highway could be used interchangeably. Some participants did not make a large distinction between the two terms. The group decided, on a show of hands, to focus their talk on the information highway rather than on the more narrow topic of the Internet. Participants defined the information highway as including individual networks, having over 500 channels, and consisting of technological networks such as telephone networks. One participant said that there are other networks, separate from Internet, with over three million subscribers. Another participant suggested that the definition of information highway includes all forms of communication. The group broke into three smaller discussion groups to brainstorm the question of what support is needed by community groups to access the information highway. In group one the model of the telephone was examined and one participant noted that government regulations keep telephone costs at an affordable price. One participant recounted that the New Brunswick tele- phone company has to provide a certain level of service with common rates for both urban and rural areas. The New Brunswick government, she said, has ordered the telephone company to make digital lines available across the province. Another delegate expressed his concern that money might be taken away from existing services such as library services and teacher's pay to provide funding for upgrading technological systems to support the information highway. The second group's discussion related to the necessity of building a solid user base. Delegates described their experiences with people new to the highway and stated that it was critical that people not be overwhelmed on first exposure. The group agreed that care should be taken so that people are not disempowered in the process. A number of delegates agreed that E-mail is an excellent way into the system because it is personal and not too complicated. Group three addressed the need to have regulations guaranteeing public input into the formation of the information highway. Without this guarantee there is the fear that commer- cial concerns will overpower public concerns. Participants also saw the necessity of having corporations which earn millions of dollars from the information highway pay something back into the system for public benefit. The three groups then came together to give a summary of their deliberations. The first group said they thought the public should be involved in the development of the highway, and with the content placed on the highway. They suggested that New Brunswick be taken as a model of how governments can use legislation to make things happen. The group noted that politi- cal will is an important factor in ensuring the right of access to the highway regardless of such considerations as geographic location. Essential to the group was the assurance that public involvement with the highway could not be legislated away. In group two's report, the issue of empowering people was underlined. The group called for tolerance towards people who do not have any knowledge about the Internet or the information highway. When introducing people to the information highway the group felt it was not necessary to use complex conceptual forms. For someone with no knowledge or experience of the information highway, a simple beginning using E-mail could pave the way to a greater level of comfort. The products of the highway have to be something people need and want. If people don't buy into the system, a lot of time and effort will have been wasted. Another important issue for the group was the understanding that support is a "grassroots up process". Community support is imperative and development of that support a priority. Group three agreed that there is a need for public awareness, and recognised that if public interest is not kindled then a lot of energy will be wasted. One task is to identify specific public user needs within the wider community. The group also noted that equipment does not necessarily need a great deal of funding as donations of equipment is becoming more common. Mention was made of geographically disadvantaged people who, for example, might not have a way to get to a library. The group had talked about the importance of education and training in relation to access to the information highway. While it is necessary that people are aware of available services, unless they are instructed in the use of the system (possibly through user guides), they cannot do anything more with that awareness. The importance of keeping a portion of the highway reserved for public, non-commercial use was mentioned. In addition, group three pointed out that while support and awareness are significant elements to the general discussion, money is crucial to the dialogue. A basic question is, where will the money come from? A national organization such as a national access board was suggested as a way to co-ordinate community access. The board might sponsor such programs as an Internet incentive program. During the last part of the afternoon session, group C discussed issues relating to the roles and responsibilities of policy makers. The group broke into two subgroups. One participant in group one said that she would like policy makers to ensure that the public has an onramp to the highway, and that public participation and control is ensured. Another participant said that a national access board would be able to match the needs of similar communities, and distribute federal funds. ONIP, the Ontario Network Infrastructure Program, was suggested as a model. One member of the group pointed out that the government, as basic practice, is moving away from making policy and toward implementing policy formed by community groups. To the question of who will pay, a participant answered that everything gets paid from the public pocket whether in the form of government taxes or consumer service fees. In the case of the national access board, one woman said the government's role could be to collect taxes and surcharges to give to the board for redistribution. Another participant said that there could be a modem tax similar to the present tire tax. Some group members suggested that the Board could use user fee money to help other people set up networks, but this was seen as a potentially tricky relationship. The second group considered the problem of who, or what body, would be in charge of the highway, acknowledging that the federal government is moving away from regulatory decrees. A participant remarked that some governments are channelling money into information systems. Another participant pointed out a major shortcoming with the Internet. "Because of it's basic architecture", he said, "the system supports only english". A basic requirement for him would be to have policy makers bring in standards that would be effective for Canadian circumstances. These standards would include access to the Internet in many of the home languages shown by census data to be spoken by a great numbers of Canadian citizens. Cultural barriers were, he thought, being underestimated relative to geographic ones. Another participant said that more information was needed to determine what communities will need as the highway becomes more tangible. Conversation developed over the role of research and development. One woman said that the focus should be on action rather than research and development. Other participants agreed that it was the role and responsibility of policy makers to make actual decisions. One representative said that in her rural area the barriers to access were party lines. The subgroups then joined together and reports were made to the larger group. The second group made their report first. The second group stated that it is up to policy makers to: * Determine community concerns and interests with the understanding that each community is different. Some communities, for example, have a high population of single mothers; * Be concerned with financial support for community access; * Be aware of federal and national standards; * Realize that rural areas are harder to hook up than urban areas; * Investigate new ways of providing services. Rural areas, for example might be better served by satellite than cable; * Prioritize issues and concerns; * Be aware of cultural and language barriers; * Monitor and direct research and development; * Take action in timely fashion. A group member remarked that policy makers should have the big picture in mind, and be in contact with many levels of the larger community. The creations of standards to suit Canadians was emphasised. The first group then made their report. Their discussion revolved around the issue of who does what. The first group saw the breakdown on three levels: local communities, provincial associations, and a national board. A National Access Board would ensure grassroots involvement. As one man said, "We want policy to be made at the grassroots level and trickle up". The filtering process is an essential component. The group called for the implementation of a new procedure for CRTC appointments, which would ensure community representation by requiring that one third of members be identified through grassroots involvement. One participant said that the government's role should be to collect taxes such as a modem tax, similar to the present tire tax. Companies which are profiting from the highway could be taxed through licenses. The Board would be responsible for identifying an equitable way of collecting and distributing money. The board would be a lobby group, advising on policy and helping to create community networks. The Canadian council on social development was offered as a model. From the afternoon talk, the group agreed on five key principles (not in order of priority): * Universal, equitable, affordable, and barrier-free access; * Grassroots involvement; * Standards that embody the Canadian charter of rights principles, and balance the common good with individual rights; * Commercial interests should not be allowed to prevail against the public interest; * Respect for privacy and copyrights. The group also talked about the need to reserve space on the highway for non-commercial, public use. One participant likened it to CBC radio, which is commercial free. One participant wanted it to be clear that unless some community groups partner up with commercial operations, they could not afford to operate. Another women made the comment "Don't sell all the land to the developers. Leave a green space." Discussion Group D The facilitator asked the group if there were comments on any parts of the morning's session. One participant said he appreciated hearing labour's perspective, Liz Hoffman's overview, and the feedback from corporate interests. Another delegate expressed concern that large industry groups might distort what they hear in forums such as this one. "Consultation and co-oper- ation is important," she said, "but we are coming from different power bases. This could lead to imbalances." A participant noted that it was clear that the corporate perspective did not include any sense of social responsibility. "But they were candid about it," said another. An uneven dialogue is created because community groups must define themselves in commercial terms. While one group member said he felt the presentation by industry had put a damper on the morning's session, another participant noted it was useful to learn "how the other side works." "Coming from the perspective of persons with disabilities," said one delegate, "I take my hat off to Stentor, but I also wonder if they consulted anyone first." She pointed out that there had been an unsighted person in the audience who was not being assisted while a speaker presented overheads. A participant suggested the group begin to look at tools, spaces, and timing for next steps, adding that the issues had been fairly well-defined by now. Another delegate pointed out that this group was to have taken an international focus; he expressed an interest in discussing policies that would ensure access within the developing world. The facilitator told the group they needed to identify five main principles for government and NGOs by the end of the session. One delegate responded that Liz Hoffman's presentation clearly indicated that principles had been established, and he would rather move on to specifics and action-oriented discussion. He agreed it should be in an international context. At this point a representative from CIDA told the group that he and his colleague would be available the next day to discuss the CIDA paper. A delegate stated that the presence of the Canadian corporate world earlier in the day raised the question of whether corporate interests outside of Canada would also get involved. He added that since the issue of cybercolonialism had been raised, they should also address the issue of resistance. Another participant expressed discomfort with such an analysis of the situation. One participant said she wanted to add the issue of Canadian content to the discussion, while another noted that this would be implicit in the international context of the discussions. The facilitator proposed that the group decide on a common set of questions and divide into three sub-groups for discussion. Some discussion took place regarding the issues to be addressed. There was general agreement on the need to identify actions and develop strategies for their implementation. One participant stressed the need to come to agreement on the conditions (or the environment) within which they would be operating. It was decided the group would divide itself into global, national, and local focuses. The discussion would be formulated around a challenge, a proposal for action, and potential partnerships. Global Perspective Discussions on the conditions, or current environment, resulted in the following list: * Concentration of resources * Illiteracy (language) * Technical infrastructure (e.g. telephone lines) * Social and political hierarchies * Audio/visual * Source of information travelling on the 'Net (northern culture) * Export-oriented (still thinking in terms of "giving to") The group discussed the value of providing information versus providing space on the information highway. One participant noted that the nature of the technology itself plays a role in its impact on a society. "It brings self-perpetuating change," said one group member. Another delegate stated that the technology is in the developing world now, so the issue is how it can be best used by people there. "The technology is there because the elite decision makers decided they needed information," said another delegate. One group member described information in terms of a process on a curve. Raw data is at the top of this curve; wisdom is at the bottom. The group noted that information technology will shorten the process and reduce the time available to filter and understand the data. The discussion moved to the type of technology that developing countries could best use. It was pointed out that the more sophisticated the equipment, the more restricted its use. One delegate suggested the tools be evaluated on the basis of how they were used in the north. National Perspective A participant suggested the group try to clarify what is going on at present. For example, he said, the Convergence Review is going to the Advisory Committee who will be reporting in June. Group members agreed it was not too late to influence this. Discussion turned to legislation and whether there was a need to redefine it. One participant pointed out that the CRTC didn't know what to do with this new technology and the issues it raises. Another delegate noted that the delivery mechanism changes the rules. Responding to a question about the need for broadcasting licenses, a participant explained that unless one is delivering information over a broad-based network, reaching a large segment of the public, it would not be considered as "broa- dcasting". A number of group members expressed cynicism about the regulatory process and having government in charge of revising the legislation. Another question raised was whether the Internet was synonymous with the "information highway". One participant said he questioned the industry vision of the information highway. A delegate pointed out that the infrastructure was being developed by the corporate world and that the public community must identify ways to reserve space and use the technology to further their own interests (for public good). One participant noted that the community she serves uses old XTs. "It's a question of access!" stressed another group member. For the purposes of influence, said one delegate, new legislation is long-term. In the short term, the CRTC submissions are one avenue. The group agreed that interventions were necessary, and that to be effective lobbyers, groups should come together under one large umbrella. Local Perspective A participant stated the challenge as "the difficulty in integrating an Internet community of social values, community interest, etc. with a 'Stentor-type' society that is profit oriented and not rewarded for 'being nice'." So, either the social issues must be framed in a business context, or community groups must influence the politicians. Another challenge for community groups, said one delegate, is fitting in to the Internet community itself, where there seems to be an emphasis on independence. A delegate stressed the need to identify "power points". Responding to the question of why power is necessary, this delegate explained that the "other side", the commercial one, is not concerned with the same issues as community groups. Also, she said, community organizations often lack funds. If groups come together, they gain leverage. Government buying power could be another source of leverage. The Internet itself can be used to organize, communicate, etc. This is, in fact, one of the power points of community groups, stressed one delegate. Rather than lobby politicians, said one participant, a better strategy would be to form good relationships with local business. They have the money. It was pointed out that this could be problematic since those who pay generally have the control. In this respect, government regulation is needed. One participant cautioned that if groups become dependent on business for cast-off computers, etc., their existence may not be sustainable since they will be at the mercy of business charity. Business must be approached using concepts and language it understands, and community groups must become a market force. A participant stated there was a misconception that business owned the new technology. In fact, she said, this is public technology. Challenge, Proposal, and Partnerships The facilitator reconvened the groups and suggested each one report on its conclusions, with time allotted for questions/comments between each report. Global Perspective Challenge: To create and implement appropriate technology (which may not be information technology) within societies characterized by rigid hierarchies and inequalities where access to information may be among a number of solutions to multiple problems. Proposal: A grass-roots approach that provides space, time, and resources for locally representative and accountable groups to make choices regarding the development and use of information technology. Partnerships: Whatever works (including radio, video, digital, print, tele) within unequal relationships (both horizontally and vertically) þ diversify your dependencies. A participant stated that "underground networks" were the best way to achieve this proposal because obstacles in the mainstream would likely interfere. "We spoke more of conditions, rather than obstacles," replied another delegate. National Perspective Challenge: To facilitate broad, equitable access to the Internet. Proposal: That any commercial information distribution undertaking hand over a percentage of gross revenues to be administered by a coalition which would be at arms-length from both government and industry to address identified priorities. This coalition would be made up of community networks, labour groups, public interest groups, equity groups, and consumer advocacy groups. Partnerships: Establish a coalition to form one super-umbrella organization to lobby at the national level. In the short term, establish a mailing list on Internet, establish credibility, fundraise, and facilitate access. Some discussion ensued about possible networking avenues. Web was considered to be an excellent tool for community group networking. One participant said he would like to see Web take a more political stance on these issues. Local Perspective Challenge: How to sell a social agenda to the business community. Community groups tend to emphasize social values, whereas business is interested in profit. Proposal: Become a market force or a political force, but do it in a cohesive way. Partnerships: Communicate, band together, form partnerships with local businesses. Speak the language of business. Consider political action when social goals cannot be sold to business (e.g. local basic phone service price regulation). A participant said that the business and political contexts should not be separated, in fact, political organization should come first. Another delegate questioned the wisdom of playing the "business game" since "it would be their playing field and they would make the rules." Some discussion ensued about motives and the need to express them in negotiations. The issue of competition with business was also raised. Discussion Group E The facilitator explained the agenda for the session. The immediate task was to identify specific supports which community groups will need to gain effective access to the information highway, and to discuss the roles and responsibilities of policy makers. Identified support needs included: * Money to provide physical equipment, staff training and the necessary human resources * Training programs of two kinds: * For new users, to help them get what they want from the information highway; * For existing volunteers, to help them act as effective teachers and catalysts. * Facilities for outreach and marketing of services. This should include a good index or directory, in both online and print form, to facilitate finding relevant resources and to aid groups in publicizing their activities and services * Communications infrastructure, such as telephone lines. Subsidies must be available for those who cannot readily acquire access. * Technical and internal/systems support, including: * Community-based advisory support. This might include such resources as a guide to shareware, a trouble-shoo- ting centre or advice on appropriate hardware purchases. Participants noted that people often don't have enough information "to ask the right questions" and can be misled by commercial consultants or sales staff. Questions include who would run this: it is important that it be community-based, with no vested interest. * Responsive, responsible and affordable consultative support. It was pointed out that this does not necessarily mean hiring professional consultants, which many community groups cannot afford to do. A participant noted that the Internet itself, along with systems such as Fidonet, emerged not out of paid consultations but through co-operative effort and the sharing of resources. * Access to shared resources, including: * The opportunity for timesharing. * Assistance from "model" systems such as community FreeNets or drop-in centres offering computer access and hands-on training. One participant mentioned the ongoing consideration of an "electronic classroom" at the Nepean Public Library, which could be used as a resource for community groups. * Establishment of a separate community network or Usenet newsgroup devoted to community organizations and issues. * Translation software, to improve access for groups speaking all languages. However, several participants pointed out logistical problems. Existing software generally produces unsatisfactory results, requiring extensive revision þ although one speaker mentioned a new program which seems more promising than the rest. The labour costs involved in revision can be prohibitive, and the process is frequently so time-consuming that the final translation contains obsolete information. * Firewall software to safeguard information and system integrity. Participants noted that many people are unaware such protection is available. Next, participants considered what roles and responsibilities must be assumed by policy makers. The first problem was to define "policy-maker". Participants suggested this term might include government, quasi-judicial bodies and committees, business, boards of directors of community groups. It could also include users themselves, who have the power to reject material or decisions either through formal channels, or informal ones like ridicule, "flaming" and non-participation. For the purposes of discussion, the group agreed to consider only "capital-P policy makers" - legislators and regulators - who should: * Ensure that existing Canadian values, such as those embodied in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, are also reflected on the information highway. * Make a continued commitment to funding. However, some participants felt that incentives for sustained development would be more appropriate than direct funding. For example, tax incentives could be given to companies which donate to community networks. * Conduct research and develop a policy regarding censorship with respect to electronic information transmission. * Seek out and give serious consideration to all views. * Make a commitment to equal access. * Provide explicit regulations designed to be enforceable. * Reaffirm the goal of free information exchange. * Make policies and regulations readily available. * Encourage broad-based participation, particularly from groups currently "unheard". * Guarantee maintenance of a competitive environment in the interest of providing adequate choice * Provide translation services. Next, participants considered the principles which should guide development of the information highway. In a brainstorming session, they listed a series of key concepts including equality of access, the censorship issue, social diversity, the quality and quantity of information on the information highway, "netiquette", the right to privacy and the preservation of Canadian values. After these concepts were refined in small- group discussions, the group arrived at the following statements of principle: * The information highway must be an open and low-cost information system which provides equality of opportunity for access to all groups and constituencies in the society. * Affirmation of the values in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, particularly freedom of expression and the right to privacy. Participants struggled with the problem of censorship, raising questions of enforceability, the accessibility of regulations, and the need to hold enforcement agencies accountable for their actions. One participant suggested that censorship should be considered whenever an individual or community was compromised by published material. Several participants agreed that the issue is adequately covered under the Constitution, which states that "free expression should only be restricted when it can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society." However, others felt that the problems of hate propaganda, pornography and so on must be addressed more explicitly. * The information highway must promote the right to embrace or pursue minority cultural and language interests. Participants described the goal of this principle as "an increase in connectivity", which should be achievable regardless of the language a user speaks. A specific reference to minorities was felt necessary, since without it the current predominance of English on the Internet, with its implications for speakers of other languages, is ignored. * Users should co-operate with and respect other users. * Users are responsible for what they post. Participants noted that this point addressed the issue of quality of information, as well as providing insurance against slander and libel. * Information posted should be as complete and accurate as possible. Participants noted that this recommendation also addresses quality, as well as helping ensure that agencies such as government do not provide only selected, "sanitized" material, but give full details including the statistics or other data on which decisions are based. * "Information highway" is a more inclusive term than "Internet" and should be used in policy as well as in ordinary discourse. In anticipation of schedule changes, the group decided to make a beginning on the next day's agenda by discussing steps politicians and bureaucrats should take to facilitate access to the information highway. Consensus was reached on the following recommendations: * Tax incentives should be provided to groups and individuals to contribute to the growth of public-access networks. * Placement of public terminals should be expanded to include such locations as drop-in centres, women's shelters, friendship, community and cultural centres and long-term care facilities. * There must be a regulatory framework to ensure that all communities have equal access to the information highway. For example, the National Capital Freenet should be required to provide lines to small communities in its area. * Skills training for the information highway should be a mandatory part of the curriculum in public schools. In clarifying this point, participants noted that "mandatory" means both that schools must offer it and students should be required to take it, as a basic part of literacy training. In line with this, schools must provide any necessary aids for students with disabilities. One participant noted that the council of education ministers is the appropriate body to set standards for this education. * Consultations must be held with communities and in particular with organizations representing persons with disabilities to determine the best methods of improving access.