FINAL PLENARY: WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE? Thursday, August 19 3:30 p.m. After the session on the future of community networking, the working groups retired to talk over what they had heard, and to develop recommendations to bring to the final plenary session. There was a surprising amount of unanimity. Bill Graham, from Industry and Science Canada, presented a summary of their discussions and conclusions. He reported that four of the five working groups agreed on the need for a national organization. One group had been split, but its disagreements were more a matter of timing than anything. They had agreed on an organization if necessary, but not necessarily organization. Several of the group thought it is too early to codify a young movement. They pointed to the Internet, which they said runs by magic; let's give the FreeNets a chance to develop the same magic. On the other hand, the group was warned that 20 years ago there was another new way of communicating electronically, and there was hope that it would develop into a truly democratic medium. There was hope that all Canadians would have access to it; and that they would be able to use it to communicate among themselves, rather than simply receiving communications from corporate programmers. That medium was cable television, and we know how much success there was in realizing that vision. It is not easy for anyone to get on the community channels, and even if someone succeeds, no one else is watching. It was suggested that having a national organization to lobby the fledgling cable industry and government policy makers might have led to a different ending. The other four groups thought a national organization is desirable now, and they listed ten activities for it: 1. Approach governments and large potential donors for support. A single organization could coordinate fundraising and support campaigns, and reduce the chances of "donor fatigue." 2. Act as a community-based network clearing house. It could collect lists of requirements, and coordinate the distribution of equipment donated "in-kind," to avoid gluts in some areas and shortages in others. It could also distribute funds obtained by the national organization. 3. Facilitate and coordinate information collection and distribution. For example, Vancouver might be responsible for collecting and distributing some kinds of information about British Columbia, and Victoria might be responsible for provincial government information. Ottawa would be responsible for federal government sources. 4. Coordinate user registration -- possibly develop a single login id and password for all Canadian FreeNets. 5. Coordinate and operate internal UseNet/Email conferences on organizational topics through such mechanisms as a listserv for people who want to start community-based information networks, and starting a Canadian-based FreeNet equivalent to the international Communet news group. 6. Develop standards for software. Improve FreePort software, including development of standards for presentation of French language diacritics. 7. Information sharing and technical support, including evaluation of developing technologies. 8. Incorporate and obtain charitable status to facilitate fundraising. 9. Encourage and coordinate the promotion of FreeNets in small and isolated communities. 10. Lobby governments, regulators, and communications companies (e.g., carriers, CA*net, regional networks, etc.) on issues important to FreeNets -- rates and tariffs, policies to ensure access for community networks, access to CANARIE, Ontario Telecommunications Strategy activities, etc. There also seemed to be general agreement that a structure, such as the one proposed by Garth Graham, would be suitable (See conference paper #6). David Sutherland, of the National Capital FreeNet, promised to establish a listserv to discuss the organization further on-line, and to set up an anonymous ftp site to distribute the conference material. Strangelove Press volunteered assistance in publishing a hard copy version of the conference proceedings. Brian Campbell, from the Vancouver FreeNet organizing committee, reported that the Canadian Libraries Association had recently passed a resolution supporting the development of FreeNets in Canada. He pointed to the need to lobby governments at all levels on information policy issues. The libraries are organizing a National Information Rights Week in the last half of March, 1994. Campbell urged FreeNets to participate, by promoting access to networks and information. He hopes there will be a national organization to lend its support to the event. Sutherland said there had been considerable support for the idea of holding another conference next year, and proposed on-line discussion to set that in motion. Finally, several participants reminded the conference that it was mostly made up of white, male, heterosexual speakers, and strongly pushed to have everyone make serious efforts to ensure that the community using FreeNets reflects the communities they hope to represent. This led to some discussion of issues such as quotas, who is responsible, etc., and concluded that efforts are needed. The conference closed with special thanks to Garth Graham and Kyla Huckerby, for their dedication and efforts that led to this being such a successful conference.