Question 2: How to make the telecentre.org Foundation (TCF) more influential on behalf of telecentre movement?

Replies are closed for this discussion.

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Jimmy L. Calata on November 21, 2009 at 8:36am

That question brings us all back to the basic concerns why we're all here, viz: digital divide, social exclusion, poverty alleviation/eradication, and well-being of our planet.

Permalink Reply by Sulah Ndaula on November 24, 2009 at 4:58am

Polly,

I like it that you would like tc.org Foundation to maintain it all inclusive open network approach - it has been its strength.


But something still unclear is how does it stratify itself downwards to meet its mission without having some degree of being formal? what will be the commitment off networks? what will be the source of its power base to its influence? what justification will networks, telecentres, and other partners have to relate with telecentre.org? remembering that a relationship based on money can only be as long as the partnersship pays best and you and I would like TCF to be trapped in this kind of game.

I don't have all the answers to the above questions but they are the disturbing issues to me.

Permalink Reply by Meddie Mayanja on November 23, 2009 at 3:43pm

Agree with Jimmy.

I think during the last 5 yrs, there has been alot of organizing the community internally and establishing process, services and relationships for sharing experiences - working together. For most part, the telecentre community has not opened up enough to private and public sector players.

In my view, these are critical players - as Jimmy points out - that the telecentre community must engage in the next couple of years. Its where to find additional resources; technologies, money, influence to shift policy and practice in our favour.

Again, the reality is - national and regional networks would have substantial work to do in this respect. It's the heart of the telecentre.org community.

Permalink Reply by Kiringai Kamau on November 20, 2009 at 10:31pm

In many African countries much of what happens is driven by the government. Promoting the use of ICTs at the grassroots calls for investment that general fund raising may not meet. There is need to promote telecentre.org to be seen as an asset donor for knowledge is indeed an asset that can be integrated in all donor forums. Can someone try and position the movement as such?

Permalink Reply by Alain Berranger on November 21, 2009 at 10:52am

Kiringai Kamau's reply inspires me to make two points: 1)Indeed, I see no contribution here from African government representatives. They have a duty to participate. TCF should promotes its on-line consultations to the public sector - what has been done about that during the planning phase to entice civil servants to contribute their ideas and knowledge? 2) I know that nothing prevents African governments to request grants and concessional loans from the African Development Bank and the World Bank and/or grants from bilateral development agencies that would allow for investment in ICT4D infrastructure.

Permalink Reply by Jimmy L. Calata on November 28, 2009 at 3:39am

This is a common scenario in almost all developing countries, most especially in regard to large infrastructure projects like internet connectivity and power/electricity. Private businesses generally do not invest in the rural mountains and far-flung areas for reasons of economies-of-scale and ROI despite their pledge of CSR. But the governments of these countries have very limited budgets even in addressing "survival" concerns as food, shelter, water, power and education, that in some way hinder them from pursuing digital inclusion projects . Promoting the telecentre movement as one among the equalizers of societal imbalances in this planet might help in shifting more global attention to ICT4D.

Permalink Reply by Jimmy L. Calata on November 28, 2009 at 5:12am

We also have information about some private investors, like telecommunication companies, wanting to penetrate unserved and underserved areas but can't proceed due to problematic local ecosystems. This and many more factors complicate our efforts in advancing ICT4D or telecentre.org.

Permalink Reply by Niranjan Meegammana on November 21, 2009 at 2:25pm

I think asking basic questions time time improves the foundation. I think, tc 2.0 is an evolving process from TC 1.0, it wouldn't be less open to community as it build a wider institutional base. Telecentre.org 1.0 although involved in much activities formally and informally was seen as an online portal to outside. However there are members who had been not only signed up as members but brought in considerable amount of knowledge from ground work in Telecenters and Networks to enlighten the community. I was done in a voluntarily fashion with leased cost and efforts by the center, and made telecentre.org a collective effort to push the movement ahead. So it will continue. I agree with poly formation of TCF should not restrict open access to telecentre.org communications portal.

However if Telecenter Foundation wants to accept more responsibility, it certainly need an institutional base, which require a legal format and members and constitution. I wouldn't consider creation of a formal membership mechanism going to exclude anyone as anyone can become a formal member through a constitutional process. I agree there is a risk element for organic development from planned development which may involve bureaucracy, yet knowing early we can have contingency arrangements for minimizing such effect to the Telecenter Movement.

Definitely, Formation of TCF will be more challenging than managing a NING, However if we are not taking a bold step to stand on our own, it will reduce our chances to sustainability. There are large number of grass roots as well as top brass and middle players benefited with telecenters, who will be the critical mass for scaling up telecenter movement, so placing TCF center in Philippine or any other place shouldn't be a problem as TCF is a global movement. Therefore what ever the structures we build for formal action, our efforts need to be collective, which can happen through local leaderships.

Niranjan Meegammana
Shilpa Sayura Foundation
http://www.shilpasayura.org

Permalink Reply by Sulah Ndaula on November 24, 2009 at 4:34am

Niranjan,

DO you see any tension related to Openness vs closeness and Formal vs. Informal and how that would affect growth trends TCF - do network and telecentres have ability to pay now.

I must say though, that I can see the tensions - thus it will be early a time to talk about formal memebrship and membership fees before TCF has worked on the concrete benefits networks and telecentres draw from the foundation. And this needs to be our head disturber now. But I must agree that one step to getting toward formalisation could be working on the structures the allow formal openness.

Permalink Reply by Niranjan Meegammana on November 24, 2009 at 2:34pm

Sulah,
There is a tension in closeness, as we engaging grass roots long term basis, they want to know as they become aware of what they are in, keeping openness from the beginning help build better trust, It's a question degree of openness we need to maintain, that's where formal processes are important.
Informal is formal in many aspects as it help bridge gaps and help inclusion of excluded. This sometimes doesn't happen in formal environments, we have seen socio-political and economic reasons sideline people and groups from development, there informal become more formal approach to me.

I don't think that there is closeness in tc 2.0, it's actually open, and it's the degree of openness (more or less).

I think underlying principals of openness as inclusion, participation, collaboration , partnerships (openICT4D 2009), which should be an evolving process.

I think we are taking a good start!

Niranjan Meegammana
Shilpa Sayura Foundation
http://www.shilpasayura.org

Permalink Reply by Sulah Ndaula on November 26, 2009 at 1:49am

Indeed Niranjan, our concern needs to the degree and timing - a controlled dose - of what is necessary to take the movement to the next level must take action. This includes the themes, principle of operation, and anything that the telecentre universe will need to succeed.

Permalink Reply by Jimmy L. Calata on November 24, 2009 at 11:55pm

I agree Sulah and Niranjan, the telecentre global network has been and should remain both free and open.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• …
• 8
• Next ›
• Page