>From: "M A Jones" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: "crl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >This is the text of a letter scripted by the Bretton Woods Project - an >IMF/World Bank watchdog - and sent to the President of the World Bank, James >Wolfensohn, expressing concerns about a new World Bank web project > >Wednesday September 20, 2000 > >James Wolfensohn President World Bank 1818 H Street, NW Washington DC 20433, >USA > >20 September 2000 > >Dear Mr Wolfensohn, > >The Bank, under your direction, is developing a major new internet >initiative which aims to become "the premier web entry point for information >about poverty and sustainable development". To achieve this it would need to >include all shades of opinion and be a broad, multi-stakeholder initiative, >including civil society. Many civil society groups, including many of the >undersigned, have held discussions with the Bank and among themselves about >the Gateway. > >We are writing to inform you that many of the major issues we have raised >have not been addressed. It seems, especially from the report "Global >Development Gateway Issues Identified During Consultations" recently >produced by the Bank's Gateway team, that you and the Bank's Board may have >been misinformed about the extent and nature of civil society concerns and >our disappointment in the Bank's response. > >These concerns are serious both in relation to the opportunities missed by >the Gateway, and because they have the potential to confuse potential >funders, people asked to be Topic Guides, site visitors, and many others. It >is not the case, as hinted in the above report of the consultations, that >these views are only held by opponents of the World Bank or groups based in >Europe. In fact a wide range of NGOs, academics and also officials are >extremely sceptical about the initiative. > >Among the key problems identified with the Bank's Gateway plans are: > >1) insufficient independence of Gateway governance. The Gateway's global and >national governance structures do not adequately protect civil society >interests. Whilst an independent foundation has been established, the >constitution of the Board and Advisory Committee do not give grounds for >confidence that the Gateway will be truly independent of the Bank, national >governments and big business. Particular concerns are the role of the Bank >in making appointments relating to the Global Gateway, governments' leading >roles in Country Gateways and companies' ability to buy Gateway Board >membership (and "co-branding" opportunities) with annual payments of a >million dollars. Creating a nominally independent entity has thus not solved >the acute accountability issues around the Gateway, issues which are very >sensitive in portal development, essentially an editorial activity similar >to publishing newspapers. > >2) alternative design options rejected. Very early in discussions about the >Gateway a number of civil society groups suggested an alternative design >approach which would use the latest spidering software to allow distributed, >user-driven topic aggregation. This would overcome the difficulties of the >chosen Gateway design which gives power and impossible judgements to >individual editors, and empower groups across the world to post and group >information according to their needs. Yet the Gateway still favours a >vertical, edited approach which will cause many problems of credibility and >useability. > >3) communication/consultation insufficient. Whilst there have been a number >of consultation exercises, it appears that the Bank has overemphasised the >production of pilot sites and fundraising rather than communicating with >diverse audiences about the GDG's intentions and what might best meet their >needs. Many important groups still know nothing about the Gateway and many >who do have tabled questions which have not been answered. > >4) overambition and unfair competition; The Gateway, whilst based on good >intentions to increase coordination of web activity, is too ambitious and >cannot meet all of its goals. At the same time its huge budget (60 million >dollars over three years) and marketing reach are likely to have huge >opportunity costs for the many existing and planned portal ventures in this >area. It is not appropriate for the heavily subsidized Gateway to compete >with these (for profit and non-profit) initiatives, including in many of the >"pilot" countries. This approach clearly contradicts normal World Bank >policy advice. > >At present, because of the above concerns and others, it is unlikely that a >Civil Society Committee for the Gateway will be formed soon, despite two >months of discussion about it. In fact a large number of civil society >groups are likely to continue with independent initiatives to improve >electronic information coordination rather than join the Gateway. > >We ask you to provide full responses to the above points as soon as >possible. > >Yours sincerely, > >Alex Wilks, Bretton Woods Project, UK > > > > >_______________________________________________ >Crashlist resources: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base >To change your options or unsubscribe go to: >http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/crashlist > _______________________________________________________ KOMINFORM P.O. Box 66 00841 Helsinki - Finland +358-40-7177941, fax +358-9-7591081 e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.kominf.pp.fi _______________________________________________________ Kominform list for general information. Subscribe/unsubscribe messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Anti-Imperialism list for anti-imperialist news. Subscribe/unsubscribe messages: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________________
