Community Access to the Information Highway Conference Executive Summary Introduction The Conference on Community Access to the Information Highway was designed to bring representatives of communities, NGOs, government, and the private sector together to discuss emerging community access issues. Although the focus was on finding ways to ensure community access, delegates frequently stepped outside this issue to address a larger question: Is community access to the information highway reflective of social progress? As keynote speaker Dr. Ursula Franklin stated, learning about the tool is important, but the crucial next step is to "keep your head clear and go back to your goal". This thought kept resurfacing as delegates discussed ways to ensure that communities shape the information highway to meet existing needs þ rather than letting the technology be developed into something which simply creates more needs. Many panelists and participants stressed that community access initiatives will only be economically sustainable if they are community- driven. The discussions which took place at this conference laid the groundwork for this process to begin. Key Issues Some key issues emerged, forming the context for the group's agreements, statements of principle, and recommendations. The issues are summed up in the following questions: * What is the "information highway"? Should the emphasis be on informa- tion or communication? Where do commercial services fit in? * Does the information highway contain quality, needed information? The value of the information provided must be weighed against the costs involved in research and infrastructure. * To what level of service would it be appropriate to expect universal access? * Who should pay for universal access? Who is paying now for the develop- ment of the infrastructure? * What kinds of policies should be put in place to ensure affordability? Delegates differed on the question of how to regulate phone line prices. There was also some disagreement over which alternative would be best: tax incentives and corporate-community partnerships, or direct govern- ment funding of community organizations. * Who are the policy makers? Delegates seemed to agree that government has the power to ensure public access, and should be developing policy to deal with emerging issues. But many also spoke of an "erosion of authority" and a "decentralization" taking place. One discussion group stated that the term "policy maker" might include government, quasi- judicial bodies, business, boards of directors of community groups, and users themselves. * Is the emerging structure one of interactive, decentralized democracy, or a culturally-specific network shaped by "thirty-year-old white males"? * Who is shaping the infrastructure right now? Several speakers stressed that local groups are ahead of government and industry in this area, and are proving their commitment to community access by setting up local freenets. * There is a distinction to be made between carrier and content. Keynote speaker Claude Forget clarified the importance of this issue by comment- ing that those who control the carrier will also control the content. * Is the dissolution of national and local borders leaving Canadian and community content on telecommunications networks defenceless before a stronger cultural influence? What can be done about this problem? * How will the information highway respond to the needs of different types of communities, as defined by geography, culture, or specific interests? * Will the technology benefit geographically-defined communities by pro- viding local jobs, enhancing communications, and providing links to the global village? Or will it detract from community by taking shoppers away from local businesses and distracting individuals from their local surroundings? Dr. Franklin highlighted this issue by warning that the individual pursuit of idiosyncratic interests on electronic networks is an "optimization of the private" which can detract from "public space" and jeopardize "the notion of the common good". * "It is not the technology, but how it is used, that will determine its impact," said some delegates. Others agreed with Dr. Franklin that they should "be mindful of how the tool shapes the task". Main Uses of the Information Highway for Communities * Communication (through formats like e-mail, BBSs, and discussion groups) which enhances virtual communities and, it is hoped, local communities; * Connectivity for cultural groups, interest groups, and voluntary agencies; * First Nations information exchange (e.g. on matters such as land claims) and basic connectivity; * Enhancement of democracy through the provision of policy information in an interactive format; * International political solidarity: movements can exchange information and better support each other; * Labour solidarity; * Health information. Overriding Concerns Some of the overriding concerns included: * The cost of infrastructure and services; * Poor/expensive phone service in rural areas; * Accessibility of hardware and software; * Barriers for people living with disabilities; * Social and economic impacts on local communities; * The relationship between technological and human development (e.g. will SchoolNet take money away from shrinking budgets and mean even fewer teachers for students?); * Community control of infrastructure development and content; * Quality/authenticity of content/information: accountability vs. freedom; * Censorship/freedom of speech issues; * Privacy/freedom of information issues; * Fraud and security; * Intellectual property/copyright questions; * Gender issues; * The difficulty of getting people to use the new technology; * The need to encourage a diversity of languages and cultures on electronic networks; * The importance of building public awareness þ of both the services and the issues. Emerging Agreements Despite the diversity of sectors represented at this conference, a num- ber of points were emphasized again and again. Participants stated that: * No one organization owns the 'Net. Content must not become the property of a large communications organization. * The public is, directly or indirectly, paying for the development of the information highway, and therefore should have input into its develop- ment. * The composition of IHAC is unbalanced in favor of the corporate sector. * The discussion needs more input from under-represented perspectives (e.g. people with disabilities, people of different cultural back- grounds, and people who speak languages other than English). * In order to be sustainable, community access programs must be "bottom- up" and not "top-down". * 'Universal' access should be facilitated by an affordable, quality infrastructure (including public terminals and subsidized phone rates as required) and access to training. * Competition among grassroot service providers is a barrier to a degree of co-operation that would help ensure community control of the infra- structure. * Communities must identify those with power and make them accountable. * Public policy must be developed to address issues of accountability and control. * The flexibility to meet community needs should be built into the system. * Sufficient funding must be made available in order to maintain universal access. * Systems should be set up to provide advisory and consultative support. These systems must be co-operative and community-based. Statements of Principle As one of the facilitators explained, participants were asked to "take a vague, undefined, and largely unbuilt entity and define it as a force for social good through statements of principle". Delegates stated that the information highway should: * Improve quality of life; * Be universally accessible; * Involve two-way communication rather than a one-way flow of information; * Be designed with consideration of the environmental impacts; * Be community/grassroots-driven; * Be subject to social regulation; * Include proactive programs which remove barriers and create opportun- ities; * Be designed and regulated with the public interest placed above commer- cial interests; * Respect privacy and copyrights; * Include space reserved for non-commercial, public use; * Affirm Canadian values as embodied in the Charter of Rights and Free- doms; * Have information postings which are as complete and accurate as poss- ible: individuals should be held responsible for what they post. Recommendations to Policy Makers Policy makers were generally advised to be mindful of the concerns raised at this conference and to ensure that community concerns and interests are known and reflected. In particular, participants recommended that policy makers: * Encourage broad-based participation, on the assumption that the informa- tion highway must be built for everyone; * Ensure that public terminals are built in public spaces; * Make training universally accessible; * Engage in consultations with communities and with specific groups (e.g. persons with disabilities) to determine the best methods of improving access; * Make the information highway democratic and accountable; * Make the technology and services affordable; * Monitor and direct research and development; * Set and maintain national standards, through a regulatory framework designed to ensure that all communities have equal access; * Develop policies on issues such as privacy, censorship, and intellectual property and make these policies readily available, preferably in an interactive format; * Maintain an appropriate environment to ensure adequate choice of ser- vices and service providers; * Integrate governmental information highway initiatives into the func- tioning of other departments; * Provide/ensure translation services. Possible Future Action Arising from the Conference Although a number of participants had left before the final plenary, those who remained formulated a list of actions which reflected the concerns raised throughout the conference. Delegates stated that: * Participants should disperse and then reconvene as a formal entity, which should work at different levels and provide advice to the NGO community. Possible forms for this entity: * A coalition which would focus on advocacy and lobby government; * A forum which would focus on investigation and discussion; * A national, cross-sectoral advisory council which would have close working relations with government. * Interested conference participants would volunteer to form a steering committee to ensure the creation of the as-yet-undetermined entity. * The emerging body might be linked with the Coalition for Public Informa- tion. * The body should make an effort to be nationally inclusive (by setting up audio-links to meetings in central Canada and/or planning meetings in other regions). * The public must be informed and the public interest promoted. * A listserver should be established to discuss access issues and serve as an electronic commons. * Participants would explore different models, co-operate, and share information. * A list of conference participants would be posted. * The recommendations of this conference should be sent to IHAC, with a covering letter to IHAC chair David Johnson. * IHAC's location should be posted. * Delegates should attend and participate in upcoming Toronto meetings. * Communities must become a market force and a political force (it remained unresolved as to how organized/centralized this effort should be).