Re: [GKD] Response from Development Gateway
Dear GKD List Members, Daniel Taghioff asked a question that has been on my mind: Does anyone have any case studies of issues and projects that have been discussed via the Gateway, with suggestions being taken on board by the World Bank? My guess is that this has not happened *widely* or *effectively.* If I am wrong, I would love to know where this has happened and the results. Many crucially need to see such results if they exist. The discussion of peer-to-peer communication I have read on this list is a welcome and needed turn for the Gateway projects. I believe we are moving past a critical point in the ICT debate in development. Many understand that the is no need to not dump information on people, gathering it all on one portal site. Martha Davies articulately stated one of the greatest, non-technical barriers to developing ICT in developing/transitioning countries: You all know that if you open the door to the Internet, you drown with all the information available. The key for ICT development is not only technology development (access to those without), but ICT development *as a part of* community development. I mean that communities themselves need to identify the information they need, the partnerships they want to form and the communication tools they have at their disposal to improve their lives. This is a process to facilitate, not a problem that technology alone will solve. ICT tools are increasing, the methods for using them are getting more complex. I hope the Gateway projects will make the tools available and teach the communities they aim to serve how to use them. The challenge is that we are all still learning how to use them *effectively*. Daniel Taginoff, pointed out that participation is the buzzword. The resources and talented people working on the Gateway projects have an opportunity to take community participation to the next step beyond merely echoing the buzz. Regards, Paul Lawrence Paul Lawrence Program Director Internet Community Development in the Caucasus Project Harmony ***GKD is an initiative of the Global Knowledge Partnership*** To post a message, send it to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]. In the 1st line of the message type: subscribe gkd OR type: unsubscribe gkd Archives of previous GKD messages can be found at: http://www.globalknowledge.org
Re: [GKD] Response from Development Gateway
Dear fellow GKD list members, First, thanks to all those who've written to me saying encouraging things about our new briefing on the Development Gateway. Thought I'd briefly respond to the post on Tuesday from John on the Bank's Gateway team, building on what others have written already. Whilst that post and the new FAQs on the site are helpful in increasing transparency around the Gateway's aims and approaches, I'm disappointed that many of the key points I raised have been dealt with in the form of vague statements, not substantive arguments or specific pledges. Major examples include: - translation/localisation strategy - displacement of/competition with other sites. Some other bits seem to have been just been cut and pasted from my briefing almost verbatim without actually giving any evidence or reason to believe it is so, ie: the taxonomy of topic and sub-topic pages has evolved over time, in order to capture cross-cutting themes such as gender and ensure a more holistic view of development. This is absolutely NOT the perception of many experienced site designers who know about development issues. The response posted on this list is also actively misleading in some places. Ie. where it states that the Gateway team has adopted a series of needed changes into its technology, editorial policy, and governance structure. These include: appointing an external Editorial Advisory Committee; and establishing a multi-stakeholder Gateway Foundation. As spelled out in my briefing, it is welcome that the Bank is planning to introduce such bodies, but unfortunate that they will only be ready AFTER the launch and will therefore not be able to take any of the key decisions on the project's design. This is confirmed by a close reading of the new FAQs on the Gateway site. It is also stated that the Gateway team has been open and frank in response to feedback. Whilst there have certainly been opportunities for dialogue, they have often ended without agreement or proper explanation. The Gateway's newsletter (which the Bretton Woods Project suggested they should launch, to keep people informed after the end of the e-consultation on this list) is often shockingly biased, shedding a positive light on the project and ignoring critical opinions. The memo also argues that flexibility remains to change the site's design, taxonomy etc. But it is flexibility only within tight boundaries. Given the evolution of the site over its 18 month planning period to date, I don't think we can expect dramatic changes between (current) prototype 3.0 and (1 July launch) prototype 3.1, or probably thereafter. Other recent contributors to this list have said that the Gateway project will go ahead, whatever criticism is received. That's true. But I know from the people who read my briefing in draft (and others) that there are still many people who feel strongly against the Gateway. And there are many open questions/much to play for, ie: - Will a sufficient range of people post to the site to make the Gateway a real diverse, live community? - Will the Topic Guides content editing system be able to cope if they do? - Will the site display information in a sufficiently helpful way to make users (including people at the coal face of poverty reduction) come back, or will they prefer more targeted sites and portals? - Will funders be persuaded to contribute to the Gateway portal and Foundation, and on what terms? If we keep the debate alive I believe we can still succeed to press the Bank to refocus their efforts, improve what they can achieve with the Gateway and leave space for others to do other things which they cannot do. If they don't, we and others will work to contest and delegitimise the Gateway, whilst building up other sites. Alex Wilks Bretton Woods Project A Tower of Babel on the Internet? The World Bank's Development Gateway is at: www.brettonwoodsproject.org/topic/knowledgebank/index.html ***GKD is an initiative of the Global Knowledge Partnership*** To post a message, send it to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]. In the 1st line of the message type: subscribe gkd OR type: unsubscribe gkd Archives of previous GKD messages can be found at: http://www.globalknowledge.org
Re: [GKD] Response from Development Gateway
In response to Tom Abeles' comments in the Development Gateway, following on from John Garrisson's input defending its legitimacy. The internet, like any other forum, is a political space, and I believe Tom Abeles is right to cast a critical eye towards the Bretton Woods intitutions on their wish for a presence. I do not believe it is wrong for them to wish to have a prominent place in this development debate, as they do in all others. It is just what is to be expected from what has always been a politically motivated institutuion. John Garrison's defence focusses on how the Development Gateway is doing all the right things from a technical/ professional point of view. This has always been the WB and IMF's argument for their political interventions. Whilst the Development Gateway may provide some usefull services, despite its top down nature, it is mainly about giving the Bretton Woods institutions a firm base in the discourses surrounding ICTs, especially since they are so closely tied to political discourses on Good Governance Let us not forget we are all engaged in a form of Social Engineering, where we all assume, right or wrong, that good communications will further our liberal democratic ideals of personal liberty. Bretton Woods has always been about such modernisation and political intervention, but we also need to examine our own political assumptions. There is a problem in that by engaging with the Bretton Woods institutions we aid them in sharpening up thier political rhetoric, by providing our knowledge as a foil for their arguments: Participation has been taken up by the Bretton Woods institutions as a buzzword from the NGO Community. However if we don't engage and make our opinions heard, how can we ever expect reform from these institutions, which are central to every development debate weither we like it or not? We can always ignore them and hope they go away,but that I fear is a bit naive. Maybe the development community needs the development Gateway as a means of influencing the World Bank, so that in our peer to peer communications we are not just talking about the disasterous effects of the next World Bank Mega Project. Maybe it is a window for advocacy from NGOs and the grassroots, even if it is not such a usefull mode of providing information in itself. If important discussions on the Gateway were mirrored on other independent sites, this might publicise the problems and issues, making it harder for these institutions to ignore them. Does anyone have any case studies of issues and projects that have been discussed via the Gateway, with suggestions being taken on board by the World Bank? Daniel Taghioff ***GKD is an initiative of the Global Knowledge Partnership*** To post a message, send it to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]. In the 1st line of the message type: subscribe gkd OR type: unsubscribe gkd Archives of previous GKD messages can be found at: http://www.globalknowledge.org
Re: [GKD] Response from Development Gateway
Adding to Tom Abeles' comments: 1) when the Internet was first opened to the public, the providers never, in their wildest imaginations understood that e-mail, peer-to-peer, was, and continues to be the killer application in its evolving forms. The key rests not in larger multilingual servers with mountains of readily accessible information but in lowering barriers between the voiceless Having just finished the first of four electronic forums that ITC presented, we, again, were made aware that for the developing countries, the simple e-mail IS THE PIPE that brings the precious water needed to grow. Many, or I dare say most, do not have computers at home. Many have to go to the cabinas Kiosk etc. to access teir e-mail. At $1 per hour, (cheap by our standards, very expensive by theirs, not many can afford to search for anything. You all know that if you open the door to the Internet, you drown with all the information available. What we also forget is that: even if the developing countries had computers at home and/or at their business place, the ISP service is so expensive that the quotas for each mail box is soon filled. What we experienced on this last forum was that by the fourth day many messages were bouncing back with: Mail box full. For us, the unlimited use, one-price per month only, for them, an unheard of luxury they can only dream about. Simple low-tech is still the only pineline available to many. 2) corporations have spent oceans of funds building knowledge portals and are coming to the realization that while this explicit knowledge is, indeed, important, the elusive tacit knowledge, as evidenced by Xerox's water cooler, appears to be key. Peer-to-peer when issues go awry. I do see the need for these knowledge portals. They are, like the huge reservoirs from where we can draw the needed supply of water. And take this water through whatever kind of pipelines we can devise for our own needs. Maybe even making simple ditches at the other end. And if we can only make a few buckets of this precious water arrive to the other end, why, we can make a desert bloom. We are good at making do with 4) the origins of the gateway. Perhaps the gateway is not needed? Perhaps it is not the roots in the grass that would choose this path to expend the 10's of millions that are being focused on this effort when one considers all the resources and time engaged in meeting, thinking and building the gateway. Consider the statistics on the net aid monies that reach the village from every foundation and government agency and ask for whom the gateway tolls, to paraphrase a noted author. Where is the alarum and the ground swell for such an effort? The gateway is being driven by a very powerful meme, one which set the World Bank and associates on the opposite side of the fences in Seattle, Quebec, Washington, DC and other places. One needs to think carefully about what happens when that large pipe gets laid from the industrialized world into the global village, driven, in part by the very parties that the disenfranchised were so concerned about. I fear Greeks even when bearing gifts, said some in Troy. For the reasons I cited above do not expect us developing countries to be able to access this reservoir directly. We cannot. Having built it, help us now to access it- From the big reservoir, we need to take it to smaller holding vats, and from the holding vats to smaller yet holding tanks. The bottom line is, so is there a better solution. And the simple answer is yes there is but not without pain. It takes considerable effort when the starving have been allowed to enter the banquet room. I visited Tierra Prometida a forsaken desert in ICa, that was given to the victims of the El NiNo flooding in 1998. No water, no electricity, no sewer. And sand evrywhere you looked. The people there were saving the water they used to wash themselves, and dishes, etc. to pour unto their gardens. A spindly dry stick with a few green leaves in the middle of a sandy place. That is the spirit of those who have little. A hope that their planting will bloom even in the midst of desolation. One last note of optimism. Tierra Prometida now has -- electricity, and I am sure that the plant I saw then, is blooming now! ***GKD is an initiative of the Global Knowledge Partnership*** To post a message, send it to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]. In the 1st line of the message type: subscribe gkd OR type: unsubscribe gkd Archives of previous GKD messages can be found at: http://www.globalknowledge.org
[GKD] Response from Development Gateway
Dear GKD members, We appreciate the opportunity to address some of the issues raised by the Bretton Woods Project in its April 2001 brief on the Development Gateway entitled A Tower of Babel on the Internet? The World Bank's Development Gateway and posted last week in the GKD electronic discussion. It is important to state that we welcome these latest comments on the Gateway from Bretton Woods Project and other organizations, as this promotes useful and constructive debate on the Development Gateway and on the use of information and communications technology more broadly. The Internet is still a largely uncharted space requiring a good deal of exchange and analysis by a wide variety of people in order to understand its pitfalls and more fully grasp its potential. Below are comments on the most important points raised by Bretton Woods Project in their brief. For a more comprehensive discussion of the policies and features of the Development Gateway Portal and the Development Gateway Foundation, please refer to the FAQs (Frequently Asked Questions) document located in the About Us section of the Gateway (http://www.developmentgateway.org/aboutus/keydocs). Ongoing contact with Bretton Woods Project The Gateway team has had ongoing contact with the Bretton Woods Project staff, with our latest meeting in March, and we consider this exchange useful. While we don't agree with some of the concerns and interpretations drawn by Bretton Woods Project, we do find some of the analysis concerning the difficulties of building and managing a global portal thoughtful. The issues of managing content while striving to both ensure quality and plurality or how to successfully publish in many languages simultaneously, are challenges which all portals of this nature face, including those operated by civil society organizations (CSOs). These and other challenges are certainly debated constantly within the Gateway team, and we welcome the input and lessons learned from others who are also working on IT for development. We are pleased to note that Bretton Woods Project posted their brief on the Development Gateway site itself (on the global NGO Page), and hope that it will generate some discussion there as well. Providing Visibility to Southern Voices The Development Gateway is not only committed to addressing the growing digital divide, but many of its innovative design features are precisely geared to providing visibility to Southern development experiences and voices. The Gateway team is actively pursuing collaboration with CSOs in developing countries to manage content, and has already established partnerships with such organizations as TARAhaat and Fondo IndÃgena. It is also supporting civil society ICT initiatives such as the sub-site by the NGO Working Group of the World Bank in the Eastern/Central Europe Region and the independent NGO portal in Latin America being established by ALOP. Further, its open-source and XML-based software allow users across the world to post resources, retrieve data, and participate in online discussions. Finally, the Country Gateways, which are being established in Latin America, Africa, and Asia, will promote local information sharing and ICT capacity-building in developing countries. These 32 Country Gateways are being established by consortia composed of dozens of local organizations from the academic, private sector, and civil society, and governmental sectors. (See the Contributors page in the About Us section of the Gateway for a complete list of organizations.) Dominating the Internet? The Development Gateway does not see itself as the one super-site on development issues, but rather an additional platform among the numerous existing portals geared to sustainable development. What makes the Gateway unique is its commitment to bringing diverse sectors (government, civil society, private sector) together, and its network of country-based portals, which will allow for more fluid interaction between local, regional, and global levels. The notion that the Gateway could in some way dominate or control development information on the Internet -- even if this were its intention, which it is not -- simply does not stand up to the origins and decentralized nature of the medium. Further, the Gateway will not compete with existing development portals or siphon off funds now being destined for civil society Internet efforts. The Development Gateway Foundation, when established in the later half of 2001, will leverage new funding for the ICT field, including providing small-grant funding to civil society in collaboration with infoDev. In short, the Development Gateway will only be deemed successful if it can enhance inter-connectivity among existing Internet portals/networks and leverage greater resources for government, civil society, and donor agency ICT initiatives. Experimental Nature of the Gateway Reflecting the experimental nature of the Internet, the Gateway initiative has been
