Panel: Community Visions Following the reports on the first day's concurrent discussions, Dennis Lewycky introduced the first set of panelists. Jean-Claude Parrot Jean-Claude Parrot, Executive Vice-President of the Canadian Labour Congress (CLC), began by commenting on what is happening in communities across the country: closures of post offices, the CBC, schools, and hospitals, and the loss of funding that many community organizations are experiencing form the context for the issue of access to the information highway. The unregulated market economy "doesn't care too much about people", added Parrot. He presented a quote to the audience: "The businessman of the future will need no chauffeur, for radio controls will operate the car at his will ... Restaurant table service will be automatic. When the soup is finished; you say merely 'bring in the fish' and the fish comes in from the kitchen by himself." Parrot then explained that the quote was printed in MacLean's magazine in 1924 as a prediction of what would be achieved through radio by 1975. He described it as an illustration of the "exaggerations made in the name of our fascination with high tech gadgetry". But any technological change has both positive and negative impacts. Though optimists claim that this new technology may have created jobs faster than it has destroyed them, there is cause for concern in four areas: * Information technology is all-pervasive. No new sector is emerging to provide jobs for those displaced by the technology. * The introduction of information technology is happening at a faster pace than earlier new technologies, leaving less time for adjustment and training. * Information technology makes work more portable, reducing the demand for labour while increasing its supply. * Current levels of unemployment hardly provide an environment conducive to more job destruction. The issues associated with the information age symbolized by the term "information highway" can all be reduced to one: power. Who has it and who doesn't? Who owns and controls the physical infrastructure and content and who doesn't? If access to the information highway is increasingly going to define individual and group membership in society, then the highway must be regarded as a public good. If consumerism alone, or predominantly, drives the information highway, its full usefulness and potential will have been lost. Access to and content on the information highway are two sides of the same coin, said Parrot. Access must be universal and affordable, and must involve an open flow of information. Special needs must also be taken into account, including geography, disability, language, and the needs of specific groups. In addition, there must be community access points in places like libraries and shopping malls. Parrot commented that often technology creates new needs in the commun ity without meeting existing needs. Parrot said Canadian content must be encouraged. He also noted that privacy must be protected. The information highway can and should be used to enhance education, health care, and the labour movement. The negative consequences associated with the technology include its impact on work; specifically: job dislocation and forced telework. Employment standards and workers rights will have to be applied to ensure that working people do not bear the brunt of the change. However these technological changes are happening at a time when even basic human rights like the prohibition of child labour are not being accepted as part of trade agreements. Parrot stressed the importance of maintaining some standards and regulations. Noting that "there is life beyond the information highway", Parrot concluded with some thoughts and questions on which to focus: * "Does the information highway represent empowerment through interactivity or impoverishment through social isolation?" * Will citizenship or consumerism direct its purpose? * Will government be sidelined to the role of facilitating private- sector decision-making? * What are the implications of "carriage and content convergence" for access by the FreeNets and SoliNets of the world? * What about user needs, and universal, affordable access? * Will the information highway produce "a virtual democracy or shopping centre hell?" * Telework and home offices may save people travel time; but it also leads to fewer services in the areas of transportation and child care, and longer work hours. * What about protection for a growing number of self-employed creators of information highway content, and adjustment assistance for workers? "Who should the information highway ultimately serve?", asked Parrot. "The answer," he said, "will tell us all we need to know about the information highway. Let's ensure that answer is the right one." Irene Seiferling Irene Seiferling, President of the Consumers' Association of Canada, emphasized the human side and noted that "what you create can dominate you". Consumers, said Seiferling, "determine the economic good". She described them as having "a remote control in one hand and a wallet in the other"; that is, they have choice and they have power. Consumers cannot be separated into a distinct category: they include everyone, said Seiferling. She expressed the hope that a strengthened public lobby would result from the conference. "Strong public dialogue results from a balance of interests," she stressed. Expanding on Dr. Franklin's "cake" analogy, Seiferling said the information highway can be thought of as a cake with a finite number of pieces; and it must be ensured that no one ends up with the crumbs. There is a business cycle that allows for a "natural and necessary" flow of goods, and the information highway can be part of that, said Seiferling. She listed three key principles to uphold: choice, competitive pricing, and an open system. It is important to ensure that big corporations do not monopolize the information highway, she said; however corporations are simply the result of "a critical mass of consumption". Seiferling identified herself and the other two panelists as members of the Information Highway Advisory Council (IHAC), which will issue a report in the next three months. Its key objectives include universal access, affordability, and privacy. Its principles are as follows: * Government policies should recognize that consumers are best served through competition. * The expanding infrastructure must come through public and private collaboration. * Phone companies must share the risk; but ultimately everyone will bear the cost. Referring to the issue of privacy, Seiferling said the Canadian Standards Association (CSA) developed a "model code of privacy" which tells businesses how to conduct themselves. Non-business groups are standing firm on this issue, because the "risk/rewards ratio" is in favour of business. Price is a key issue. Long-distance phone services can no longer subsidize local service, commented Seiferling. Canada currently has a very good communications system, but the country is "poised on the brink of a new world order" and must plan well. Seiferling outlined a "wish list" which included: * A strong consumer voice; * Public funding of a strengthened voice to provide the CRTC with an alternative to the "powerful and almost unlimited" corporate lobby; * A Deputy Minister to concentrate solely on increasing access for all levels of the community. Seiferling called for "co-operation and a spirit of open- mindedness". She concluded with a quote describing the information highway as "a personal ized village square", and expressed the hope that this vision would be achieved. Elizabeth Hoffman Elizabeth Hoffman, Chair of the Steering Committee of the Coalition for Public Information, said the presence of people who work on the "front lines" distinguished the conference as a good one. She began with a description of IHAC as composed of 30 Canadians who advise the government on the goals of creating jobs, reinforcing Canadian sovereignty and identity, and ensuring universal access at a reasonable cost. Its five principles and objectives are as follows: * The development and implementation of a strategy for an interconnected "network of networks"; * Collaboration of the public and private sectors in development; * Competition among products and services; * Privacy protection and network security; * The establishment of an environment of lifelong learning. IHAC is "heavily weighted in favour of industry", said Hoffman. She urged delegates to talk to the IHAC members attending the conference and convey to them their concerns. Speaking on the Coalition for Public Information, Hoffman said its goals are to provide an effective grassroots voice to ensure that the infrastructure serves the public interest. She urged participants to join the Coalition, adding that even those who cannot afford a membership should inquire. Hoffman thanked Stan Skrzeszewski and Maureen Cubberley for their work on the Coalition's report, which reflects the results of a national public consultation, and is entitled: Future Knowledge: The Report. A Public Policy Framework for the Information Highway. The report found that the public recognized the economic benefits of the information highway, but saw in addition that it has the potential to enhance quality of life. The five key areas identified by the public are: universal access; freedom of expression; privacy; intellectual property rights; and employment/quality of work. Concerns included affordability, and the "absolute necessity that there be a public lane". Gender issues are also very important. Hoffman commented that the women at this conference represented the largest number of women she had seen at a conference in the past year. Access for people with disabilities and for rural/remote areas are key areas. A national access board would be a good way to examine issues of accessibility. Society is being transformed, said Hoffman, and the public must be involved in the discussion. The Coalition recommends that all parties develop broad public information campaigns. Hoffman outlined four challenges to leave "not with you but with us": * Change how people see us and how we see ourselves. * Change how we do business. * Have an action plan. * Examine where to go from here. Hoffman quoted from a book entitled Reinventing Government, which states: "Empowerment is as old as the frontier. We are a nation of self- help organizations ... And yet when we organize our public business we forget these lessons ... We let the police, the doctors, the teachers, and the social workers have control, while the people they are serving have none." Hoffman warned participants of the dangers of "client-hood", which describes people who wait for others to act on their behalf. In contrast, "citizens" act on their own initiative. "Good clients make bad citizens; good citizens make strong communities," she quoted. Although the public agrees on the principles, they must move beyond agreement and establish an action plan. Hoffman outlined several key points: * There must be a public game plan for guarding the public commons. * Computers must not replace or take money away from programs. * "We have more to gain if we listen to one another." * Issues of privacy must be addressed. For example, hotels keep the numbers of all local and long-distance calls. * Intellectual property laws now being prepared must be carefully monitored. * What will happen after IHAC? People must design the tools at the grassroots level. The government must change how it communicates with the public, so that people actually get the information. This technology is not just one sector; it is a sector that affects every other sector. Society should always strive to get closer to the ideal of democracy, said Hoffman. She concluded by building on Dr. Franklin's "cake" analogy. People know who is symbolized by the icing and who is symbolized by the crumbs; they must convince themselves and the powers that be that the cake is really an upside-down cake and that those at the bottom should rightfully be at the top. Greg Searle: Response Greg Searle, of the Telecommons Project in Guelph, gave a context to his response by stating that Canadians are building the information highway now in their own neighbourhoods, and are beating both government and industry in setting up the infrastructure. Searle agreed with Parrot that design and access are very important, and that the public must be involved in design. It is also important to find ways of getting government support. If companies were on community networks, said Searle, it would promote community advocacy and enable people to start a dialogue on products and services. In the race to have an impact on the infrastructure, it is important to "stake out an early presence", he said. It would be good to slow the develop ment of the technology; but by no means should community groups stop fighting for access. Searle echoed Hoffman's challenges and added that his organization has encouraged community networks to have a free market mentality so that they would be more sustainable. But it has also urged them toward a democratic mentality. This dual character sometimes causes confusion, said Searle; but good marketing is community outreach, and good community outreach is good marketing. Searle stated that community networks can change the shape of Dr. Franklin's "cake". However, he stressed that communities must get beyond the "network" structure, explaining that networks are a traditional model, and computer technology just modifies the parameters. He urged that communities adopt the concept of "community development" instead. If the community networking movement is weaving together society, he said, then it is essential that "the person at the loom" knows a lot more about society and "significantly less" about the technology. Noting that everything being discussed is political, Searle said people should have been either much more upset or much more excited sooner than this. He challenged communities to develop a vision and become politically active. He also urged all network developers to co-operate. Discussion Marita Moll, a joint founder of the Public Information Highway Advisory Council (P-IHAC), said the organization was developed out of anger at the fact that government was developing policy to the exclusion of the public. There are 30 people on the government's IHAC, only a small number of whom are working to represent the public interest. "We know", said Moll, that there are no jobs coming as a result of this technology, and that there can be no competition as has been claimed. She urged participants to "talk about what matters". Poor communities are trying to develop themselves, with no resources; at the same time, the federal government is pumping money into nothing but the facilitation of private interests. Moll said she would like to see an agenda come out of this conference. She added that the conference was put on by "people who care", and stressed that "there's no money being made here þ there's money being lost. I want you all to know that." Hoffman suggested that delegates use the conference to form recommendations to take to the federal government. A delegate from Vision TV who said she was wearing her "community hat" expressed discomfort with being defined as a "consumer". She said the word takes one out of the role of creator/producer/participant and implies a passive role. It should be obvious, she added, that people who define themselves by what they purchase would lose their privacy to companies researching their spending habits. Seiferling responded that there is a "consumer part" in everyone and that she was urging people to be aggressive rather than passive in that role. Hoffman said she was even uncomfortable with the word "citizen", which had been in a quote in her speech, because community members who are not citizens should also be included. On the issue of privacy, she said vendors should be entitled to keep track of larger buying patterns, and do not need to monitor the habits of specific individuals. A speaker who identified herself as a "resident" of a number of differ ent communities said the Internet is useful in its ability to extend dialogue, which is a key way to learn. Commenting on Seiferling's speech, Garth Graham said the recommendation that the shareholders bear the cost is fine "if we're building"; but, "if we're moving into a knowledge sector", then the people who pay will be "you and me". On another point, he advised that literature which refers solely to the information highway's capacity for information should be modified to read "information and communication". This moves people away from the "client" role in relation to the government. Commenting on Seiferling's recommendation that a Deputy Minister be assigned to deal with issues of access, Graham said he would like to meet a DM who wants this kind of interactive communication. A participant from CIDA who said he was speaking as a citizen responded to Parrot's comments on the effect of emerging technologies on labour matters. Stating that labour at Canada Post is involved in a head- on collision with the technology, he asked if it is possible that the technology is empowering people to get rid of a service which they feel does not meet their needs. Parrot responded with a brief history of the relationship between Canada Post and emerging technologies. Post office workers have always known that change was coming he said. The problem is that, when the post office started getting involved in communication, the government of the day would not let it compete and would not give it support. Parrot noted that people used to pay their bills at the post office, where they could write cheques which would not go through right away, giving them time to put money in the bank. Now the technology allows for bills to be paid at the bank - but the bank both charges people for this service and profits on the interest it collects by debiting the account before it pays the bill. Parrot added that Canada Post will still have a role, despite the new technology. A delegate who identified herself as a fourth-year political science student expressed a concern with the discussion of the previous day. She said participants were using the terms "Internet" and "information high- way" interchangeably, and confusing computer networks with the Internet. Responding to Hoffman's recommendation that they create a national vision, she asked how a national vision could be built when this technology is breaking down traditional state borders. A speaker commented that Parrot had been modest in his history of the post office and emerging technologies. He explained that in the same era in which Parrot was being demonized by the media, CUPW recommended that the employer harness these technologies þ a recommendation which the employer ignored. Referring to a comment from Hoffman about the CRTC, he agreed that the CRTC should take its public responsibility more seriously. Referring to Seiferling's comment about the "Rogers Cable fiasco", he said there is a misconception that when the public can "pick and pay" services somehow get cheaper. A speaker who identified himself as a student and a member of Local Global Access said the information highway should be viewed as an opportunity for the dissemination of information. If information is power, then it is crucial that important information is disseminated to everyone. Seiferling clarified her comment that shareholders should bear the risk, explaining that she had said they should bear the risk of investing in building the infrastructure, but ultimately the public will bear the cost; and, because the public is paying for it, they should have a say in the decisions that are made. She closed by saying that consumers do not want 500 channels; what they want is a say in how goods and services are packaged and delivered. Panel: Industry Visions Dennis Lewycky opened the session by introducing panel members. Richard Cavanagh: Stentor Telecom Policy Inc. Richard Cavanagh, Director of Social Policy at Stentor Telecom Policy Inc. (STPI), began his presentation by explaining that Stentor is an alliance of major regional telephone companies; STPI is Stentor's government relations and policy advisory body. He then introduced himself, noting that his background is not in telecommunications. Before being hired by Stentor, Cavanagh worked as a lobbyist at the Canadian Conference of the Arts and as an instructor in communications at various universities. "This session on industry visions interested me," said Cavanagh, "because Stentor seems to be in the business of vision." In October 1993, Stentor issued a vision statement, outlining its position on issues such as government policy and regulation. It also issued a statement on culture, announcing an allocation of $50 million to the sector. Stentor has also published a paper addressing issues such as the impact of the information highway on jobs and economic competitiveness, as well as education, health care and disability issues. "It's time to put words into action," Cavanagh proclaimed, noting that there are many vehicles available. More time should be spent lobbying groups such as Stentor, because people in the telecommunications industry are "a harder nut to crack" than the government or community groups. He told par ticipants that "A group like this one can get the telephony culture out of the dark ages and into the light." Regarding Stentor's development of its vision, Cavanagh noted that often what is left behind is the focus on what people - Canadians and customers -want. Stentor asked the general public what they wanted out of the services Stentor could provide in the information highway arena. Discussion boiled down to three main themes: * Access; * Choice in services (here services in education and health care came first, while infotainment ranked last); and * A commitment to community even in the face of competition. One possible model is community television. Stentor has attempted to respond to each of these concerns, said Cavanagh. In terms of access, Stentor is developing a universal product design to facilitate access by people living with disabilities. Competition will breed choice and lower prices, but it is necessary to define what is meant by "universal" access. "From our perspective, the community is the starting point, the cornerstone for the development of the information highway." Cavanagh pointed out that Stentor shareholders are increasingly interested in its activities in the community sector. FreeNets, SchoolNet and PharmaNet are the building blocks of the information highway, and they also present business opportunities. In Alberta, PharmaNet is a network that is making health care accessible and is saving the province a great deal of money. Issues that need to be examined are: how the information highway will be paid for and by whom, subsidization, and regulatory flexibility. "Future networking at the community-level needs to be facilitated," said Cavanagh. Stentor has made a public commitment to culture, education and health care. It has recognized the importance of community networking. However there is a need for feedback from the community. Cavanagh concluded his presentation with "a piece of blunt advice" for the way in which community groups should communicate with the industry sector: "The more you can frame this (feedback) as a business opportunity, the more successful you will be." Bruce Matheson: Rogers Cable 22 West Bruce Matheson, Program Manager of Rogers 22 West, noted that his presentation would focus on Rogers, community TV and Cable TV. While community TV had been approached for coverage of the conference, no teams were available to film the sessions, Matheson explained. He pointed out that the merger of Roger and Maclean Hunter had been keeping the staff at Rogers busy lately. Matheson gave a brief history of community TV and access issues, including a recent period of reduced accessibility. "We feel we should get back to our grassroots," he said. Community TV was one of the first companies to become involved in the National Capital FreeNet (NCF). Community TV became involved in NCF to get community feedback, for promotional purposes, and to generate resource material for program development. In September 1995, community TV will launch a World-Wide Web site complete with graphics. Other activities planned for the future include: the development of multiple channels; an automated interactive play system; video downloading; producing; making community council meetings more accessible, and disseminating community messages with voice and video components. "While we continue to be technologically involved, we can't lose sight of the community," said Matheson. Community TV will continue to develop community relationships, involve volunteers and use advisory boards. Because it has a self-expression mandate, community TV will promote self-expression success stories. Matheson explained that Rogers will provide the hard- and software for SchooLink, a network that will link 1300 schools. It is also exploring telecommuting, testing the concept with IBM employees in Newmarket. Matheson concluded his speech on a positive note by referring to an article in Canadian Business that states that a software that enables the teaching of maths is currently "the hottest selling franchise". Rainer Paduch: fONOROLA i*internet Rainer Paduch, President of fONOROLA i*internet, used a series of overheads to describe what fONOROLA i*internet has done, and where it is going with regard to the information highway. "We're focussed on building a national network, because we're getting impatient with the telephone companies," he said. Commenting on an earlier speaker's reference to a Mac truck on the information superhighway, he noted that the Mac truck is going down a dirt road: "The best way to describe the information highway is using two words - `under construction'." An important issue to be examined is transportation versus content, said Paduch. Transportation is a standard telephone company problem. He noted that the Internet is moving out of the realm of research and development and becoming mainstream. It is one of the most affordable means of communication, costing modem users approximately $1 per hour, or 1.6 cents per minute. One of the interesting features of the Internet, Paduch pointed out, is that users can make their own content available to other users. Paduch then gave a brief overview of fONOROLA i*internet. "fONOROLA i*internet is...focussed on developing Internet capability across the country," he explained. This company is looking at hooking up some of the more isolated communities. One example of this initiative is in Northern Quebec, where selected communities will have Internet connectivity in autumn, 1995. "By Fall we will have a presence in every major city, and the smaller towns will be able to have access to the Internet through these centres," Paduch stated. He then gave participants a general background to the Internet. Describing the Internet as a "ChaosNet" that is available to everyone, Paduch pointed out that the majority of people who go online are from the United States. However, there is a substantial number of Canadians online and the number of people connected to the information highway is growing rapidly. It is important to think about network performance, Paduch said. For example, it takes a very long time to download a video through a modem: "You need a faster connection that is good quality, like a Rogers connection." He stressed that the information highway is a "dirt track". If people are using the information highway only to get a TV picture, then they are better off hooking up to a cable system. "Consider what you want out of the Internet," he said. "The price is fairly nominal and you can get a lot out of it." Communities can gather lots of information through the Internet, some if it for free, and some at a cost. David Sutherland: Response David Sutherland, Chair of the Board of National Capital FreeNet, Director of Computing Services at Carleton University, and member of the federal Information Highway advisory council responded to the panel. "There isn't an information-highway," noted Sutherland. "It's just a bunch of ideas." Sutherland pointed out some new developments that are making the information highway more accessible. "All electronic information is now being moved to a common form, and it's digital instead of on analog," he said. This will ensure that a common carrier can be used for video and other services. This development is what is referred to when people talk about convergence, said Sutherland. Once information is in a mathematical form, digital and video compression can take place, which could lead to the 500-channel universe. Wireless communication is another medium that will enhance accessibility. This development will lead to microcellular telephony, which will also be based on the digital system. This type of communication will be available as early as autumn. It will be able to process voice, and provide Internet access. A parallel development can be seen in the satellite industry. Direct home transmission is making inroads in England, although it is still being debated in Canada. "This medium could change universal access issues," stated Sutherland. It will also change concerns regarding the delivery of services now limited by geography. Hook-ups to low earth orbit satellites will cost only $1 per minute from anywhere in the entire world. Using this information as a backdrop, Sutherland addressed key points made by the panel speakers. "Universal access is a serious problem; the question is, access to what? What are people willing to pay for? He noted that not everybody wants access to the information highway, and it is therefore necessary to figure out what people are willing to pay for it. He stressed the need for a definition of minimal universal service: the Information Highway Advisory Council (IHAC) attempted such a definition, but all they could come up with was cheap telephone service that is high quality. Access has to be defined in terms of human needs, and whether it promotes better health care services, banking, access to legal services and education. Sutherland said he liked the comments on community networking as represented by community TV. "We should reserve the right of way þ not necessarily pay for it - but ensure that we have space for community TV," Sutherland stated. Sutherland referred to a book entitled Life After Television by George Gilder, who predicts that bandwidth will become free. This would upset the current economics which are established on the assumption that band width is very expensive. Gilder draws a parallel with the computer industry, showing that although there were seven computer companies ten years ago, because of the introduction of the microchip, the only computer company to survive is IBM. A similar phenomenon will happen with cable companies, Gilder predicts. "We're just on the edge of inexpensive bandwidth. Things are going to change a lot. We're going to deal with a significant social revolution as a result of the technical revolution," Sutherland concluded. General Discussion Addressing his comments to Cavanagh and Matheson, a delegate noted that both speakers had addressed the idea of community space. He asked whether or not Matheson's job would still remain if all community TV's stories could be posted only with FreeNet permission. The delegate noted that neither Rogers nor Stentor had mentioned a community channel in their submissions to the CRTC. Stentor did, however, say that it would not support a community channel. "Given the way your organizations have acted on the policy level," asked the delegate, "how can we trust that you are going to implement access?" Cavanagh responded that in the convergence process, Stentor said it would discuss ways to approach the community channel that do not follow the current model. This model has failed on a number of fronts. "I do think an alternative is a necessary component," he noted, adding that deliberations such as the present one should be held to find out what constitutes an acceptable version of public space. He referred to a comment made the previous day by a speaker from New Brunswick who noted that people have to engage in a lobbying exercise. "It's a balancing process," said Cavanagh, noting that community groups have to approach industry groups. "How do we do that at a practical level?" the delegate asked. Cavanagh noted that a number of reports are being released, such as the IHAC report. His hope is that these will contain recommendations to hold consultations with community groups. One way for the dialogue to start is for industry to listen, just as it is doing at this conference. Matheson noted that he has been involved with community TV for 14 years. At first people used to shoot home vide type programmes. "A change took place, and suddenly people wanted to look slick," he noted. There are two camps within community TV, he added: those who believe the channel is filling in for the local broadcaster, and those believe community TV is getting away from issues of access to become providers instead. Matheson predicted that community TV will break in two: one channel will provide pure public access, while the other will be a local origination channel that is commercial. Matheson noted that community TV is being asked to cover more and more events. However, people are not willing to get training in order to shoot their own films; instead, they find it easier to sit in front of a computer and go online. He noted that the Internet will make it easier for community TV to shoot films in communities for editing in a central location. A participant asked the industry representatives how they were dealing with the issue of copyright, and whether they saw themselves as owning the material they carried. Cavanagh noted that Stentor has developed an interest in rights issues: "We've said we'll be carriers and not gate-keepers. We're distributors, not owners." Another delegate referred to the thousands of layoffs that have occurred recently in telephone companies. "The continued economic viability of the community is important," he said, "and instead it gets lopped off." He asked that conversations about competitiveness be refocussed, as we are going through a transition period at present: "Instead of focussing on competitiveness, we should create a framework of what we want and ensure that companies fulfill it," he stated. "The cable rebellion is a good model for how we can model ours." The speaker referred to a Stentor initiative, modelled after one in the U.S. called Ameritech, that is marketed to the top 20% of online users, while the rest of the users are phased out. This is not a viable model, he said. He noted that the Premier of New Brunswick said he would provide community access to online services, but asked the community to do it. "We have to force the cable companies to do this, and not talk about competitiveness," he concluded. Quoting Noam Chomsky, a group member said the mass media forms "a smoke and mirrors society". The panel members are representatives of the central authority of the 'Net, he said. "Looking at the panel, I see four white men who represent the central authority of the Internet, I don't see decentralization." He asked for access to these companies' corporate and technical reports, saying that this would be decentralization. He pointed to IBM's predicament as an illustration of increased centralization. "When Rogers and Stentor start providing the service, there's no way any small company could compete. Instead, these companies would have to go to Rogers and Stentor. This goes against my vision of an anarchy net," he concluded. One participant asked the panelists to do a thought experiment, engage in a paradigm shift, and imagine that they are in their backyards speaking with their neighbours. He asked them to play out this scenario, and to respond to their neighbour's question: "What is progress now?" He referred to Irene Seiferling's image of a kaleidoscope zeroing in on a dialogue taking place in a market square. Marita Moll, a member of the steering committee for the conference, thanked Stentor for having provided financial backing for the conference. She went on to remark that local measured service would increase costs so much as to destroy all the accessibility to electronic networks that community groups have been working for. "We have to make sure that you know there'll be an open revolt if this goes through," she concluded. Mitchell Beer, President of InfoLink Consultants, thanked fONOROLA i*internet for having provided the link to the Internet for onsite tutorials. Following this question period, panel members made their closing comments. Cavanagh noted that in his vision of progress, the notion of a kaleidoscopic view of a market place was a starting point to address the question of decentralization. He noted that a group of companies as large as the Stentor group can do a lot to bring down barriers to access. This can be seen in the success that Stentor has had in lobbying the government to get more access for people living with disabilities. However, he pointed out that in big business it is difficult to convince CEOs that initiatives are viable if there is no market effect. Referring to comments about Ameritech, Cavanagh said he had never heard of it before. He added, however, that there is no question that companies market their products to people who use online services most. He concluded by saying that a lot of discussion must occur before positions can be taken. Matheson said that he could not speak for Ted Rogers' vision of progress. Rogers has had a humbling experience with the consumer backlash it has undergone, and so things can only get better. He emphasized that it is necessary to start building strong community relations. Responding to the thought experiment that a participant asked him to embark on, Matheson said his neighbours weren't interested in the information highway. Instead, they were interested in CHCH and City TV applying for licenses in Ottawa, as this would mean that they would have access to more sports coverage. They also rejected the idea of having to pay for a service that they didn't use. Matheson concluded by saying that some online services will have to be free, and that this is a social responsibility. Paduch started his closing comments by noting that fONOROLA has had to hire rather than fire people. "We have to balance our requirements with com munity expectations," he noted. Referring to a participant's request for access to fONOROLA's technical and corporate reports, Paduch noted that it is not possible to disclose this information because of competition. The "tug of war" between the interests of large companies and those of their shareholders and community groups make fora like the current one a requirement, he concluded. Dennis Lewycky thanked the panelists, and the session was adjourned. Keynote Speaker: Karen Adams John Thurston, Manager of Emerging Technologies at InfoLink Consultants Inc., introduced Karen Adams, Executive Director of the Canadian Library Association (CLA). Before becoming Executive Director of CLA, Adams worked as chief librarian for the provinces of Saskatchewan and Manitoba. Thurston noted that libraries and librarians have been involved in information access issues for many years. In 1992, CLA sponsored a national summit on information policy, and it sponsored information rights weeks in 1994 and 1995. Adams began her talk by referring to a Doonesbury cartoon in which two street people are sitting together. One tells the other that he has posted his resume on the Internet, but hasn't had any responses to it. His colleague asks him what address he used, and he responds: "lunatic@street.level." Using this cartoon as a springboard into her talk, Adams noted that participants at the conference are talking from privileged positions: "Most of us know about the issues and have access to technology." She told participants that her presentation would focus on the historical and economic roles and values of the public library system. Adams proceeded to give a brief overview of the history of libraries. Libraries existed at least since the third millennium B.C., when people started transferring the stories found on cave walls to portable media, such as papyrus. Libraries served the elite, and there is evidence that libraries tended to flourish during periods when civilizations were advancing. The concept of the public library is a twentieth century phenomenon. It gives access to all and is funded by the tax base. Previous library models were built on a user-fee model. Andrew Carnegie, who played a major role in the foundation of public libraries, left a mixed legacy: although some say he was a philanthropist building libraries to enable access to information, others argue that Carnegie built libraries to keep potential rebels busy. There are currently 3300 libraries in Canada; there are fewer post offices. Libraries disperse power to the many by creating an informed public. Referring to the information highway, Adams warned participants that we could be on "the cusp of a new dark age where information won't be available to the community as a whole". Adams illustrated the economic viability of libraries. Using a regional library system serving 100 Saskatchewan municipalities to illustrate her statement, Adams noted that in 1994 the libraries lent one million items at a cost of $2.50 per item (including operating costs such as library staff salaries). "Therefore the economic argument for libraries remains strong," Adams concluded. There is no way that the general public could buy these items elsewhere for this price. "The role of the libraries is to provide the most access for the least cost," she emphasized. Adams then read a quote from UNESCO's Public Library Manifesto that defined the role of the library in terms of freedom to unlimited access to information, a notion which is based on the concept of equality for all. The Manifesto refers to equal access for people of all ages and cultural backgrounds, and stresses that the material held by libraries should not be restricted by religious values or censorship. The Vancouver and Westmount Public Libraries are examples of libraries that are doing innovative things to provide access to the information highway. The Westmount Public Library, for example, is building a new edifice that features 22 public access terminals. "The library is the most heavily-used institution in Canada," noted Adams. A round of applause followed Adams' statement that in British Columbia, the number of people going to libraries exceeds those going to hockey or other sports events. "Libraries are the only social institution committed to the widest access to information," stated Adams. One negative aspect of library- going is that the activity of reading is conducted in isolation. Another weakness is that when libraries are threatened in certain communities, it is difficult to mobilize community groups because whether or not someone is a public library member is not immediately apparent. Libraries were among the first institutions to adopt new technologies. They were pioneers in the integration of networks and in using EDI. "This leadership role stems from being a community provider," Adams pointed out. Libraries and library staff have a deep understanding of some of the issues at stake regarding the information highway. In 1994, the CLA established a set of information and telecommunication access principles which addressed five areas: literacy, universal access, community rights, public space and privacy. Adams concluded her presentation by noting that people have often asked Adams why she isn't worried that libraries will die because of the information highway. She responds that the concept behind the information highway is not new, and that the addition of new tiers of information does not require the obsolescence of existing tiers. Thurston thanked Adams for describing the way in which public libraries have been meeting a wide range of information needs in communities for years. "I'm sure we're all happy to have it confirmed that we will have libraries in our cultural landscape for the duration," he said. 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? - 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 consumption, 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 the facilitator 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 - 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 - 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 - 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 - 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, technologically-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 throughout 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 community 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 forfeit ure 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 deficit." 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, the facilitator 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 fin- ished 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 þ to which public access is guaranteed þ 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 regula- tion. Discussion Group B [Writer's Note: There was a 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, facilitator 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. The facilitator 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. The facilitator 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 pre- occupation 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. The facilitator 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. The facilitator 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. The facilitator 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, the facilitator 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 the facilitator'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. The facilitator 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 con- ference. 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 [Writer's Note: There was a portion of the day's proceedings during which the discussion group split into three smaller groups. This report is not wholly inclusive of the proceedings from those smaller groups.] Facilitator Zoe Cermak began the session by reviewing the key aspects of community access identified by the group on the previous day. 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 net- works 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 exam- ined and one participant noted that government regulations keep tele- phone costs at an affordable price. One participant recounted that the New Brunswick telephone 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 is 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 commercial 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 political 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 involve- ment with the highway could not be legislated away. In group two's report, the issue of empowering people was under- lined. 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 under- standing 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 are 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 appoint- ments, 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 woman made the comment "Don't sell all the land to the developers. Leave a green space." Discussion Group D [Writer's Note: There was a portion of the day's proceedings during which the discussion group split into several smaller groups. This report is not wholly inclusive of the proceedings from those smaller groups.] Facilitator Kenneth Fisher 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-operation 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 "broadcasting". 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. The 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 Facilitator Susan McIntosh 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-shooting 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.