ABOUT COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY ON COMMUNITY-BASED NETWORKS... There's a danger in generating revenue by including pay-per- use information on a freenet. What happens to the quality of the information being provided for free? Will it continue to be available free of charge, or migrate to pay-per-use? The feeling is that the proliferation of 1-800 numbers offered by businesses indicates there is plenty of information they want disseminated for free, so a deterioration in the quality of free information on a freenet may not be such an imminent danger. Canadian freenets haven't yet addressed the issue of providing gateways to commercial services, but again, this practice does not necessarily mean the quality of free information is in jeopardy. On the topic of commmercial providers vs. FreeNets: one group believed that the two will not be providing the same services, and information providers will decide which forum they wish to use. The downside is the possibility that some of the more exciting applications may only provide their services over commercial networks. THOUGHTS ON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SMALL BUSINESS AND FREENETS Michael Strangelove expanded on one issue that he addressed during the plenary about how Freenets can possibly embrace the business community. One idea that he put out for discussion was that perhaps the Freenet could allow him and other small businesses to pay for a dedicated terminal in a mall that would be accessible to the general public. This terminal would have a selection on the first menu for access to the Freenet as well as other information about his company and other product information. Peter MacDougall, with the NCF Public Access Committee, indicated that this type of arrangement would not be in violation of existing policies and that it would be something that they might consider. Tom Grundner's remarks last evening on the comparison of Freenet to the Public Broadcasting System in the US was used as another example of how Freenet can recognize the support from businesses. Similar to how a TV program is sponsored in part by a particular company, the Freenet could indicate the participation of business in either the development of the system or in the supply of information. The NCF are currently doing this to some degree, by displaying the name of the company that has paid for the phone line when it is accessed by a user. An example of where it might be acceptable to give recognition for providing information was given by using a grocery store as an information provider. If a particular grocery decided to accept the responsibility for providing information about produce then they may receive a note in that section of the forum indicating their participation. ie: "The Producer has been brought to by So and So's Grocery". A question was asked about allowing organizations to conduct business on the Freenet and what would be commercial use and what would be individual use. Again the grocery store was used as an example, and acceptable interaction on Freenet might be an individual placing a grocery order to his local store. However a definite unacceptable use would be if the grocery store attempted to advertise special prices on products over the system. IF THE NCF IS SO POPULAR THEN WHY NOT CHARGE A FEE AND GIVE BETTER ACCESS? This question relates mainly to the philosophy and ethics of what the mandate of a Freenet should be. The policy of the NCF freenet is that it does not charge for information and it does not pay for information. The intended purpose of this Freenet is for community access that is available to everyone and they do not wish to create different classes of users. Other than the moral obligations to the principles of Freenet, there are no real restrictions on such activity. It is possible however that if a community began charging for access and/or allowing commercial use, that it may not be accepted as a member of the international Freenet community through the National Public Telecomputing Network (NPTN) in the US (or a similar international organization of this nature that might be established). It was pointed out that although Freenets are FREE to use, they are not FREE to run. The organizers of the Halinet project are planning to have Freenet as part of a larger system which will have commercial access. There will not be a charge to access Freenet, but the costs for commercial use may be used to help subsidize some of the costs of the Freenet. THE VALUE OF FREENET INFORMATION One participant said he found it interesting that the focus over the last two days has been on access isssues, but not on seeing the commercial potential of information being put on the freenet. For example, he used the political candidate postings outlined during the morning Theme Session. These postings could be of extreme value to political analysts, over and above the use casual readers can make of them in deciding for whom to cast their votes. One explanation for this lack of consideration of the commercial potential is that freenets tend not to be set up by people from entrepreneurial backgrounds and as another participant in the session pointed out, many of the attendees at this conference are not themselves information providers, but information users. AH! SWEET REASON! The question of whether you should expect higher quality information if you pay for it than if you get it for free led to other philosophical questions: Is access to information a right or a priviledge? Most agreed that access to basic information (the example cited was local government action, including minutes of city council meetings) is a right, but there is some debate as to where "basic" information ends and "value added" begins. How much Internet access can you give your users? Many use freenet as a gateway to Internet, in order to avoid long distance charges. At issue is the question of affordability, insofar as you have to determine whether a user can actually afford the costs of access. The rule of thumb for libraries seems to be, "provide as much access as you can" and it applies to in-house services, as well as to Internet. OPINIONS ON A WHOLE LOT OF ISSUES... Edmonton considering providing a special gateway to commercial enterprises that would support the gateway and pay a fee to the Freenet. The idea of allowing companies a dedicated line for access to the freenet was turned down on the basis of the precedent it set and the fact that this was essentially a commercial service that can be had elsewhere. As a fund-raiser, offering advertising in the form of acknowledgement of a company's sponsoring a phone-line, which dial-up users see when they contact that line was deemed acceptable. It was recognized that services such as advertising for hotels and restaurants would represent a problem for commercial policy. Bu it was generally agreed that these services had a greater social service component than commercial component. Advertsing should not be sold because core services could become dependeant on a volatile source of funds, ie. bad "press" on the net equals a pulling of sponsorship. Commercial policy will have to be flexible across Freenets; particlualrly in the north where large corporations (like mining companies) might be the sole source of funding and therefore require a certain commercial presence. Two possibilities were discussed for avoiding conflicts between funding and commercial sponsors: create a national organization to collect all donations on behalf of the freenets which could then redistribution of an "impartial" basis; or set up an "independant" Freenet foundation in each city to collect donations for the freenet as a charitable foundation.