Re: [GKD-DOTCOM] What Can and Should be Brought to Scale?

[Silvia Balit]

Dear GKD Members,

I agree with much of what Stella Hughes has said with regard to scaling
up. However, we must not forget that communication for development is a
social process, and the technology is only a tool, a means to reach the
objective of increasing participation, sharing information, knowledge
and skills and improving the quality of life of people in developing
countries. What is important is the process... Discussions on the
potential of ICTs for development often concentrate only on the
technology.

Also, the past decades of experience in communication for development,
making use of many different media, have provided much experience and
lessons learned, as well as guiding principles and knowledge of critical
factors for success. All this experience should not be forgotten when
planning for the future of ICTs in development.

I agree with Stella that one has to strive for support and committment
at different levels, from communities as well as policy makers. However,
I believe that one of the essentials for sustainability and scaling up
will also be capacity building and the training of a sufficient critical
mass of communication specialists as brokers/mediators and facilitators
to assist with the use of ICTs, especially with illiterate rural
audiences.


Silvia Balit




This DOT-COM Discussion is funded by the dot-ORG USAID Cooperative
Agreement, and hosted by GKD. http://www.dot-com-alliance.org provides
more information.
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
For the GKD database, with past messages:
http://www.GKDknowledge.org

Re: [GKD-DOTCOM] What Can and Should be Brought to Scale?

[Mullinax, John (J.)]

Joe McCannon has some very good points here. That said, I'd like to
inject a new idea into this debate:

Scaling up can be a problem, but scaling down is the bigger and more
relevant problem.

Big ICT systems can and are created all the time, though less often in
development work. These large scale systems take lots of planning, and
an awareness of their domain (as Joe suggests) that is usually
associated with lots of study and lots of money. Which is probably why
they are seen in the development world comparatively less than in
industry or even government. Although large ICT projects have failure
rates that are still too high, I think virtually everyone would agree
that people exist in this world with the skills to design, build, and
implement these projects given sufficient resources.

It's a much more difficult task, however, to take a project designed
around the kinds of technologies, tools, support operations, and people
requirements typical of a $100 million + ICT implementation in industry
and figure out how to make it work in a low cost, low resource
environment that might need to rely on a relatively gradual
implementation plan, and where local participation and control is very
important. In other words, the question becomes one of how to get Big
ICT features, robustness, and value for Small(er) ICT costs.

I don't claim to have all the answers, but from my experience some of
the keys to doing this are:

1 - Understanding the critical success factors for a project. What MUST
happen, what should happen, and what would be nice to have? This can
quickly get into number 2 (below).

2 - Clear vision of how you define success. You need to be very clear
about what your primary, secondary, and tertiary goals are, and it helps
a lot if all players agree. This seems so simple, but it happens so
rarely. Everyone has their own interests they're looking to maximize. 
You can't be all things to all people, everyone needs to understand how
to make decisions when trade-offs are required.

3 - Build and instantiate an ICT architecture optimized for your
functional and non-functional requirements. Given that 70+% of ICT
costs (within industry) are incurred after the development for version 1
is complete, thinking about maintainability, supportability, SCM, asset
management, extenisibility in features, and flexibiltiy in partners, and
scalability itself (up and down) are all important considerations.

4 - Long term vision for both the technology and for the business
environment around that technology. This is related to incremental
delivery. Should version 1 role out to a large population with low
levels of features? Or to a small population with high levels of
features? How often will you iterate feature delivery? Do you have
funding stability, or at least commitment to a defined point in your
plan with a agreed level of service? One tip: make sure your first
implementation offers something your customers value. This seems very
simple, but many times projects will use version 1 to lay some
infrastructure ground work, and without the users seeing the benefits,
version 2 becomes more difficult to fund. If you do it the other way
around, you get credibility and people are more willing to go for round
2. Of course, this needs to be balanced with a sound architecture, too.

5 - Plan to leverage local talent. If there is little of that
available, you have a very difficult problem -- in many cases it may be
better to spend some resources building that local talent first before
going too far down the path. If there are no local people who
understand what you're doing, why it matters, and are willing to
"evangelize" your project within their communities, the deck is very
much stacked against you.

6) A related item, use local people (who are target users, not locals
participating in the project) to derive and/or validate your use cases.
Test early and often, at both the user interaction level and throughout
all phases of development to ensure what you end up delivering provides
a value people recognize and care about.

My two cents

John Mullinax
Advanced Application Architecture and Technology (A3T)
Ford Motor Company
[EMAIL PROTECTED]   |   313.322.1830 (w)   




This DOT-COM Discussion is funded by the dot-ORG USAID Cooperative
Agreement, and hosted by GKD. http://www.dot-com-alliance.org provides
more information.
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
For the GKD database, with past messages:
http://www.GKDknowledge.org

Re: [GKD-DOTCOM] What Can and Should be Brought to Scale?

[Cornelio Hopmann]

Dear Stella,

May I start with a critical remark to your remark:

> We discussed the issue of whether local communities should determine
> what pilots go to scale at the Dakar symposium. The general conclusion
> was that you don't need baseline studies or focus groups to know there
> is a huge deficit of information and communication at community level in
> developing countries. You and I were never asked whether we wanted
> access to radio, TV, newspapers or the Internet before these things were
> made available to us. The CMC was seen as a basic tool that communities
> could use for their needs. It is also true that there is great demand
> for CMCs in Africa.

May I note that you weren't asked, either less obliged, to pay for
radio, TV, newspaper before they were made available to you.

Yet under the slogan "sustainability" many -- from the comunity level
upwards to state-level -- are obliged to pay (or you intend to oblige
them) as you yourself wrote:

> We have no model to go on here, but we believe that as well as the
> essential local leadership, there has to be genuine top level political
> committment to facilitate the supportive public policy and regulatory
> environment that is required - hence the mobilisation of Heads of State.
> The also has to be real conviction on the part of donors and a
> multistakeholder approach. At present, we are preparing the launch of
> the initiative. The next stage will be the formation of consortia of
> partners in the 3 countries to plan the project strategy in detail.

Which -- taking into account the lack of democratic culture and
consensus building in many, if not most, developing countries -- boils
down to making top-level arrangements instead of an offer in an open
marketplace -- an offer which can be accepted or rejected individually.
Rather you make the leaders commit themselves such that the respective
communities (and states) as such pay without choice. Not very honest.

Let me add some observations: scaling up is not as simple as just to
repeat the same example (pilot) over and over again. If it were, I
suspect including  all the initial "hidden" costs of foreign expertise,
donor-institution support etc., etc. into the repeat-budgets would kill
any project scale-up as "economically not feasible", therefore the
key-question is not if the root (or pilot) -project may be repeated but
rather if the way it was done permitted upscaling at lower costs (or by
extended leverage of the initial investment) using local resources.
(Which by the way makes it obvious that any pilot that does not include
local capacity building beyond the needs of the pilot itself can not be
upscaled).

Second: upscaling itself -- even more, upscaling ICT -- normally adds
complexity (and hence costs) to the whole system. As an example, it
poses different situations whether you have to feed by a central hub 20
VSAT-receptors or you have to feed 1000.

As known from enterprise-development-histories, many enterprises
successful on one level of scale, went broke just because they didn't
succeed in adopting management and organization on time when they
entered the next level of scale.  And it's known that there are negative
thresholds, which means a required initial investment in organization,
tools and equipment, which doesn't pay off unless a certain minimal
market-position with respect to the next scale is obtained. (Upscaling
implies discontinuous steps unlike simple growth that fills up a
existing potential).


Cornelio Hopmann
niDG Coordinator and in ICT4D since 1983





This DOT-COM Discussion is funded by the dot-ORG USAID Cooperative
Agreement, and hosted by GKD. http://www.dot-com-alliance.org provides
more information.
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
For the GKD database, with past messages:
http://www.GKDknowledge.org

Re: [GKD-DOTCOM] What Can and Should be Brought to Scale?

[Stephen Tournas]

One of our USAID-funded activities that turned out to be an excellent
example of scaling up was the US/Brazil Learning Technologies Network
(LTNet). Former country project manager Eric Rusten, whose contact
information is on the contractor's web site
, provided me with this
summary a while back:

Signed in October 1999, LTNet was initially designed to be a simple
on-line clearinghouse for static information (reports, case studies, web
sites, etc.) on the use of information and communication technology
(ICT) in education to enhance teaching and learning in primary and
secondary schools in Brazil. In addition, LTNet was charged to organize
and carryout workshop and seminars on an opportunistic basis. LTNet's
primary partner in Brazil was the ProInfo program at Brazil's Ministry
of Education.

Over the course of three years, LTNet grew and transformed itself in a
variety of ways. These transformations enabled LTNet to move from
serving a very few information and technology elites in the major cities
to meeting the ICT and education needs of thousands of teachers across
Brazil from urban to rural communities. Together the processes of
scaling-up and transformation created a synergistic mutually reinforcing
cycle that continues to push and pull LTNet forward. This complex
interactive process of scaling-up and transformation that occurred in
the LTNet project can be categorized in the following ways:

Static-to-Dynamic / Passive-to-proactive scaling: The LTNet web site
changed from only passively providing static information (most of which
was in English with Portuguese abstracts) to being a proactive provider
of active and interactive content much of which is generated and managed
by educators across Brazil.

Supply-Driven to Demand-Driven: At the start, LTNet was largely a
supply-driven initiative from Washington DC. Although staff made efforts
to learn what information was needed and desired by Brazilian educators,
most of the project actions were driven by Washington, DC staff. Toward
the end of the first year LTNet started becoming a much more
demand-driven effort with Brazilians providing significant input into
decisions about what useful services LTNet would provide. This change
resulted in a scaling up in the degree of local ownership of LTNet.

Limited Scope to Broad Scope: LTNet started with a rather narrow scope
of activity that proved to have had very little demand among Brazilian
educators and rather quickly scaled-up its scope to provide: a broad
spectrum of training and professional development activity; virtual
environments for collaborative learning among schools within Brazil and
between Brazilian schools and those in the US; enabling local
experimentation and innovation via user driven pilot activities; and
creating opportunities for Brazilian educators to test out their new
skills with integrating technologies into teaching and learning.

Centralized decision-making to a network of collaborative partners:
LTNet started as an initiative under the US/Brazil Partnership for
Education with ProInfo as the principal institutional partner. During
the first year of the project the partnership relationships started to
scale-up and evolve to include actors from other parts of the Ministry
of Education, for example the TVEscola project, State and Municipal
Secretaries of education across the country, NGOs, corporations, and the
US Embassy. This scaled-up complex of partnership relationships enables
LTNet to achieve results and impacts far beyond the limited financial
and staff resources of the LTNet project.

Serving a few ICT elites to meeting the needs of thousands of public
school teachers across Brazil. As a passive web based clearinghouse full
of static documents, LTNet would have never reached many educators or
had any significant impact on the use of technology in teaching and
learning. The processes of transformation and the resulting scaling-up
in scope, outreach and responsiveness is enabling LTNet to directly and
indirectly impact education in Brazil in a variety of significant ways.
The continued growth of LTNet is being driven by an ever-expanding
network of teachers who are making LTNet into their own on-line learning
environments.

LTNet later became a registered NGO when the project ended!

Stephen Tournas
CTO, LearnLink and dot-EDU
USAID
Washington, DC




This DOT-COM Discussion is funded by the dot-ORG USAID Cooperative
Agreement, and hosted by GKD. http://www.dot-com-alliance.org provides
more information.
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
For the GKD database, with past messages:
http://www.GKDknowledge.org

Re: [GKD-DOTCOM] What Can and Should be Brought to Scale?

[Joe McCannon]

I agree strongly with much of what Stella Hughes says, and am especially
supportive of the idea that local ownership and capacity-building has to
be a cornerstone of any development initiative that does not perpetuate
dependency.

In response to the question on what specific critical factors lead to
successful scalability, Stella suggests there is not much to go on in
the world of ICT. This may be the case but I would point out that there
are lessons from other sectors (e.g. military, industry, health care)
that might be instructive. For instance, the work done by BRAC in
Bangladesh to expand their Oral Therapy Extension Programme (OTEP) -
oral rehydration therapy for diarrhea - was a great success that was
spread nationwide. Likewise, major bottlers and franchises (e.g. Coke,
Heineken, McDonald's) probably have something to teach in this respect.

Having looked at a variety of industries, several scientists from my
organization - the Institute for Healthcare Improvement - have
generalized the following principles of scaling up (which may or may not
have relevance to ICT):

* You must understand full scale before you start the scale-up work
(i.e. what is the growth goal);
* Successful scale-up comes when a project or program is expanded in
phases of roughly 5x-10x per phase;
* It is important to list all of the factors involved in the system to
be scaled and then design for maximum leanness in every area;
* It is important to be aware of constraint changes as you expand (i.e.
which factors scale arithmetically, which scale negatively and which
scale positively)
* It is important to be aware of the oversight requirements and
information systems requirements once full scale is attained;
* It is important to be aware of which factors have to be scaled up
structurally and which can be scaled up though replication.

As for creating a context for successful scale-up, Stella is quite right
to point out that a supportive policy environment (political will) and
cooperation of donors and NGO's are necessary; to this I would add that
successful scale-up also requires:

1. A robust delivery system backbone (e.g. a mechanism for delivering
supplies, maintenance)
2. A collaborative methodology and communications network to facilitate
exchange of data, innovation and best practices between sites.

I know this is somewhat abstract but hope it adds value. This thinking
is presently informing our work on scaling up HIV-AIDS treatment in
collaboration with WHO, a key part of which will be a communications
network to support scale-up (what I am studying in the Reuters Digital
Vision Program at Stanford this year.)

Best,
Joe McCannon
---
Institute for Healthcare Improvement
Reuters Digital Vision Fellow, Stanford University, 2003-4
617-359-6320





This DOT-COM Discussion is funded by the dot-ORG USAID Cooperative
Agreement, and hosted by GKD. http://www.dot-com-alliance.org provides
more information.
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
For the GKD database, with past messages:
http://www.GKDknowledge.org

Re: [GKD-DOTCOM] What Can and Should be Brought to Scale?

[Stella Hughes]

Scale up is clearly a challenging question and one that seems to have
left us all pondering since it was put to the list. UNESCO is going to
launch a scale-up initiative at the ICT4D Platform in Geneva (conference
event No. 1.3) on 10 December, together with the Swiss Agency for
Development and Cooperation as a key donor and the Heads of State of
three African countries as champions of scale up in their countries. Our
Community Multimedia Centre programme (CMC - combining community radio &
telecentre facilities) already has some successful pilots in Africa,
Asia and the Caribbean . The
proposal for going to scale was discussed at a Symposium in Dakar in
June  by some 20 international
development partners (IGOs, NGOs, bilateral agencies, Foundations...).
In UNESCO's view, scale-up could not be done without the active
involvement of all relevant partners working in the country.

Now to answer the questions:

> 1. Is scalability important -- or even valuable? Or are local
> communities better served by having a wide range of diverse activities
> tailored to specific contexts, shaped by local needs and priorities?

Is scale up important? We believe so - it is the only way to achieve a
critical mass sufficient to impact on development of whole societies and
regions and not remain restricted only to individual communities. It
obviously brings economies of scale. It also forces a re-examination of
the resource investment in pilots: is the investment in pilots realistic
or excessive when it comes to increasing the number of local projects?
It may scarcely be noticed that a project is not very cost effective at
the level of one village; it becomes glaringly obvious when planning how
to bring that project to scale. Can scale up allow for diversity, shaped
by local needs? Yes, if there is local ownership. A CMC offers a basic
communication and information platform for the development needs of a
community. The community can adapt and prioritise according to local
needs.


> 2. Are there examples of ICT projects that have successfully scaled up
> significantly? Please provide concrete information about cases.

We have begun searching for such examples at the same time as we are
planning this initiative and would welcome examples.


> 3. What specific critical factors lead to successful scalability? Are
> there common factors across pilots -- e.g., commitment of local
> leadership, technology that can be supported by an identified revenue
> stream, supportive public policies? Is it possible to devise a common
> set of "critical success factors" that can be used to assess which
> pilots should be scaled up? Would such a common assessment tool be
> desirable or would it stifle innovation?

We have no model to go on here, but we believe that as well as the
essential local leadership, there has to be genuine top level political
committment to facilitate the supportive public policy and regulatory
environment that is required - hence the mobilisation of Heads of State.
The also has to be real conviction on the part of donors and a
multistakeholder approach. At present, we are preparing the launch of
the initiative. The next stage will be the formation of consortia of
partners in the 3 countries to plan the project strategy in detail.


> 4. What pilot projects have attempted to scale up and failed? What can
> we learn from their experience? What critical issues led to the failure
> of scalability?

We are also currently searching for examples of failure for lessons
learned. Without anticipating on the findings, sustainability has to be
a key factor. The CMC generates its own income by functioning as a kind
of community cooperative - offering for-profit services alongside free
or subsidised services for priority groups based on development
priorities. That is one step towards financial sustainability.
Organisational & social sustainability have also to be addressed.


> 5. Are there "technology models" that seem particularly effective in
> addressing the needs of under-served communities and should be scaled?
> If so, what is needed to bring them to scale?

Our model is based on the active combination of radio together with
Internet and other digital resources. Community broadcasting that draws
on the information resources of a mini-telecentre reaches the whole
community, overcoming the barriers of language, literacy levels,
distance, lack of awareness etc that often limit individual
participation. The result is an exponential impact that just 3 or 4
computers with connectivity can have on a community of, say, 100,000
people.


> 6. Should local communities be more involved in determining what pilots
> go to scale? Do we need a global "help desk" that communities can query
> to determine the project approaches that best fit their needs? Or
> perhaps an "ICT and Development Consumer Report" that provides unbiased
> assessment of ICT project approaches?

Re: [GKD-DOTCOM] What Can and Should be Brought to Scale?

[Kevin O'Shaughnessey]

Greetings,

Regarding scalability, I initially hesitated to respond to this because
the context for my response is mostly the US which has advantages in
some ways but also has its share of challenges in ICT programs  
However, related to one of the questions, I believe there are some
useful overall lessons that can be applied in many places.  Here are
some responses to the moderator's first few questions.

> 1.  Is scalability important -- or even valuable? Or are local
> communities better served by having a wide range of diverse activities
> tailored to specific contexts, shaped by local needs and priorities?

To the 3 sub-questions:  Yes and yes.  And yes.

I write from experience with a US NGO that worked with community-based
organizations (CBOs) to establish after school youth development
programs using networked PCs with internet access as tools. We
established telecenters and programs with 1000 youth-serving CBOs who
each were already serving their community and knew it best. As we
learned, we focused on asking these centers as our customers which
products and services would make them successful--and then attempting to
deliver as many of these items as possible. The goal was to reduce some
of their time in creating or searching for program content,
administering their center, tracking students, etc. This freed time so
they could spend more time in direct service with clients.  This program
was not perfect but it proved to me that a combination of a top-down and
bottom-up approach could provide many of the benefits of both approaches
(e.g., economies of scale with retention of locally-driven programming).
 As well, some potential of the "network" was starting to be realized as
many of the products and services available to all 1000 centers
originated with individual centers and not the central office.

> 2. Are there examples of ICT projects that have successfully scaled up
> significantly? Please provide concrete information about cases.

PowerUP, a US NGO, was an ICT project that in many ways successfully
scaled up--and went through a lot of growing pains as well. The central
office of PowerUP closed in 2002 (yes, there is irony). All but a few
of the telecenters were operating (they never had central financial
support for operations) on the day the central office closed. Today,
anecdotal evidence says that the vast majority of telecenters and
programs that PowerUP helped create are still operating effectively or
even thriving in their communities. The biggest reason for success is
due to the individual CBOs. They're the ones that are making it happen
in their communities. They are the ones who saw the need--and pulled
the technology and program to their community. Over time, we learned to
do less pushing and react more to what they wanted to pull from us. 
Many centers benefited from training, tools and consultation that we
provided for working with their community and planning for their future.

> 3. What specific critical factors lead to successful scalability? Are
> there common factors across pilots -- e.g., commitment of local
> leadership, technology that can be supported by an identified revenue
> stream, supportive public policies? Is it possible to devise a common
> set of "critical success factors" that can be used to assess which
> pilots should be scaled up? Would such a common assessment tool be
> desirable or would it stifle innovation?

I offer a few potential success factors to add to those already
mentioned above:

* Know your theory of change; what's critical (and what's not) about
your program that is essential to achieving results (see article below)
* Programs need to be pulled in some way by the community, rather than
pushed to them
* Shift program approach from controlling what's done locally to
defining standards; then reward for reaching standards
* Help each community reach its individual potential; don't focus on
bringing every community to the same level right away
* CBO staff are customers: serve them so they can serve their
constituents
* Each community needs a physical stake in the success of the program.

Regarding an assessment tool, a common tool that works more like a menu
rather than a specific process would be valuable in this case. As far
as innovation, my general experience is that tools free time for further
innovation instead of stifle it.

Forgive me for not tackling the messy parts of addressing ministries and
regulators, dealing with the S-word, working in a world of scarce
resources, etc. I'm hoping to contribute to the conversation, not close
it ;)

As a closing note, there's an interesting article related to this topic
in the Stanford Social Innovation Review (www.ssireview.com) Spring 2003
issue: Going to Scale: The Challenge of Replicating Social Programs by
Jeffrey Bradach. Sorry, I don't think it's a free article.

Best wishes,
Kevin O'Shaughnessey






This DOT-COM Discussion is funded by the dot-ORG USAID Cooperative
Agreement, and 

[GKD-DOTCOM] What Can and Should be Brought to Scale?

[Global Knowledge Dev. Moderator]

Dear GKD Members,

During the past two weeks, GKD members have discussed impressive
activities that are managing to bring connectivity to under-served
areas, overcoming an array of obstacles and limited resources. They have
described innovative approaches to utilizing, modifying and
experimenting with technology to adapt to local conditions and needs.
They have also revealed common challenges -- government policies, cost
structures, human resource constraints, etc. -- which go beyond
technological considerations.

Members have also debated the question of bandwidth: Is some minimum
bandwidth necessary to have a real impact on development? The answer:
"Enough" depends on the objectives. Yet in a context of multiple and
diverse needs, both narrow and broadband are likely to be appropriate,
as long as the bandwidth and cost match the specific needs and
objectives. In addition, broadband connections can be more
cost-effective in various contexts.

This week we turn to the question of scalability. Some GKD members have
noted that excellent pilots often fail to be scaled up, for lack of
funding. Some have argued that no pilot project should ever be conducted
without an explicit plan -- and budget allocation -- for scaling it up
upon success. At the same time, some GKD members have noted that there
have been huge investments in pilots that cannot scale.

KEY QUESTIONS:

1.  Is scalability important -- or even valuable? Or are local
communities better served by having a wide range of diverse activities
tailored to specific contexts, shaped by local needs and priorities?

2. Are there examples of ICT projects that have successfully scaled up
significantly? Please provide concrete information about cases.

3. What specific critical factors lead to successful scalability? Are
there common factors across pilots -- e.g., commitment of local
leadership, technology that can be supported by an identified revenue
stream, supportive public policies? Is it possible to devise a common
set of "critical success factors" that can be used to assess which
pilots should be scaled up? Would such a common assessment tool be
desirable or would it stifle innovation?

4.  What pilot projects have attempted to scale up and failed? What can
we learn from their experience? What critical issues led to the failure
of scalability?

5. Are there "technology models" that seem particularly effective in
addressing the needs of under-served communities and should be scaled?
If so, what is needed to bring them to scale?

6. Should local communities be more involved in determining what pilots
go to scale? Do we need a global "help desk" that communities can query
to determine the project approaches that best fit their needs? Or
perhaps an "ICT and Development Consumer Report" that provides unbiased
assessment of ICT project approaches?

We look forward to our Members' valuable input regarding these issues.






This DOT-COM Discussion is funded by the dot-ORG USAID Cooperative
Agreement, and hosted by GKD. http://www.dot-com-alliance.org provides
more information.
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
For the GKD database, with past messages:
http://www.GKDknowledge.org