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 yapa chandralatha on November 21, 2009 at 11:22pm

hi
Thanks and we will need A constitution, formal application, Membership fees and A Board for governance and we can issue its my opinion we will try to best level and Mr Niranjans idea is very good thanking you

yapa
sri lanka

Permalink Reply by Dean Mulozi on November 22, 2009 at 7:45am

Dear all,
We take into account the existing instutional platform currently in place as we discuss this question. As telecenters exist in a wide communities, we seem not to have a complete institutional platform that could play a bigger role in exerting influence. At international level, we have telecentre.org Foundation that will play a role of influence. At continental level, we seem to have a vacuum, and in some countries and regions we lack regional and national telecentre networks or represantations.

In order to increase influence of Telecentre movement, the institutional platform must complete from local, national, regional up to intsternational level to reposnd to current and future challenges as well influence of the telecentre movement.

In this regard, we have step up information interactions at all levels in telecentre development among practioners, agents, managers and networks.

Thanks

Dean Mulozi

Permalink Reply by Niranjan Meegammana on November 22, 2009 at 1:16pm

Hi Dean
We both sharing the same views, in formation of the organization.

1. What do you think of the relationship of the organizations vertical or more horizontal ?

2. What are the roles of members as

a. Telecenter Agencies and Institutions
b. Telecenter professionals
c. Telecenters
d. Telecenter staff

what do you think of their relationships with the TCF ?

3. Creating a Local, Provincial, National, Regional and International structure is good for development, but will it create a gap between telecenter people who are now a one global network in telecentre.org 1.0, and if so how do we maintain both ?

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

Permalink Reply by Alain Berranger on November 23, 2009 at 11:31am

Hi Niranjan,

Focusing on membership fee structure, here are a few ideas for consideration:

In GKP we use the "Friends" category to include every individual interested in the GKP network with basic service free. TCF individual members (or friends) would not pay any membership fee, thus making the tc.org totally inclusive - hence the need to keep a ning type social networking as tc.org now has. Beyond individual members, there could be institutional members at various levels: Individual telecentres, various associations of telecentres, national federation of telecentres and finally international members. The membership fee should scale up with size and capacity to pay...the total annual sum of fees to be such that it would cover 100% of the costs for basic secretariat services in the Philippines (portal/network operations, membership relations, earned revenue operations, fundraising and strategic partnering development and oversight). I believe that a General Assembly of Members should oversee the Board and that TCF Board members should be elected from institutional members. A number of Individual members would be elected by individual membership at large to become voting members of the General Assembly. The GA would operate virtually and occasionnally f2f if needed/affordable. Partners from the public sector and companies would have to pay the highest membership fees. Sponsors and donors would become members at time of sponsoring or makind a grant. The central node in the Philippines could offer consulting/advisory/research services to paying clients about telecentres and the tc movement, ICT4D issues, pilot projects, surveys, etc... using members as consultants/advisors/researchers earning revenues to be split between central node (overhead fee) and working members, individual or institutional.

...the balance to be attained here is minimal organizational structure and open membership discipline vs. financial sustainability of central node in the Philippines to serve the tc.org community.

That said, I would like to see the various and many ICT4D orgs/networks like tc.org, GKP, GAID, DG, WITFOR, etc... come together in a federation or a merge to reduce central node costs, create synergies and attain economies of scale in servicing the BOP. There would less career entitlement and more service mindedness... but I'm probably dreaming!

Alain

Permalink Reply by Niranjan Meegammana on November 23, 2009 at 5:36pm

Dear Alain
I agree that the model used by telcentre.org is more inclusive, with telecentre.org 2.0 we can enlarge of this inclusiveness. In an open participatory model the term stronger resource node seems more suitable to me. The center could be anywhere anytime, in an electronic world, center can move and ownership can be shared

I think what ever the fee paid or unpaid by a member or an institution should not be a status of membership to create more gaps... I have found some membership fees are too high for the service rendered, it excludes people.

if membership fees collected from grass root telecenters, it's best used locally, it make more sense to them.

The new world will be social purpose driven, where each business (private or government or a non-profit) shall contribute for social sustainability (philanthropic capitalism - Willie Chang). Therefore the world will always have donors (people with good hearts- prof. Mankind).

Volunteering is a good way to reduce costs - open ICT4D is a good way ahead

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

Permalink Reply by Jan Herder on November 23, 2009 at 7:57pm

Thank you Niranjan, Alain and everyone for these stimulating ideas. I must agree that the membership fees can be a tremendous challenge for a struggling telecenter and I am happy that membership for individuals will not be constrained by fees. Niranjan is correct that we are moving into a web 2.0 version of the organization, and this has already begun with the ning structure of this social network. I would suggest that even as we speak we are moving into a web 3 version of the internet and with it a new vision for organizations, wealth creation and sustainability. TCF must have the courage to embrace this new epoch and be a leader with the technology that is the forefront of change--not merely being reactive to changes and following old models. TCF 3.0 is dawning and can be perceived in different ways. For our purposes I see an interconnected network that is virtually based, but grounded in the deep ecology of the particular community of each telecenter, but creating its own meaning and wealth. Connecting related organizations and their resources is critical, of course. More importantly, locally generated content, and the sustainability of the unique ecosystems of each telecenter is what will make the network strong, as it is only as strong as each member. So how is this TCF 3? Each TC is a slowly awakening organism, adding to the depth and knowledge of the whole, communicating with it and sharing its lessons and wealth. This is through rich data, learning resources, the experiences of its students, teachers and members. While volunteerism is a model from the past, I advocate for an internship model for the future. So each TC's "fees' are the collected and tried wisdom of its members, who can be ambassadors, virtual and f2f, that spread the new wealth of sustainability to the network. In return they validate, and TCF can provide "Accreditation" of their competencies and so build mentors and role models for the young to follow.
Looking forward to more...
Regards,

Jan

Permalink Reply by Sulah Ndaula on November 24, 2009 at 4:43am

Alain,

This sounds like a plausible mode of membership... and inclusion. It could address the tension of openness vs. closeness and informal vs. formal

Permalink Reply by Jimmy L. Calata on November 25, 2009 at 12:10am

I agree that financial sustainability is a key element of organizational efficiency. That is why I proposed under Question No. 1 the establishment of a bank (or similar facility) for the global telecentre network (e.g., Global Telecentre Bank or any much appropriate or acceptable name for that purpose) that will oversee the network's fund generation programs and activities, and management of its funds. The engagement of other institutions and networks into the global telecentre network would justify further the need for such a bank or facility. This is plain and simple application of the division of labor concept within the global network.

Permalink Reply by Jan Herder on November 26, 2009 at 12:50pm

There are 2 steps that could be taken immediately to facilitate this discussion and the evolution of this network to a more productive body: 1) Creation of a wiki that aggregates best practices and organizes the content so it is accessible. A ning is great for this free discussion, but TC.org should create a wiki to assemble this before we loose all these excellent ideas in the proliferation of threads. and 2) create the virtual organization comprehensively in the virtual world where interaction can be immersive and include all types of media. Granted, there are broadband issues at this time for inclusiveness to remote areas, but a virtual world can import most platforms and integrate less advanced technologies through things such as Google docs on a prim, etc. Creation of the virtual organization could begin immediately without the need for a bricks and mortar investment, saving resources for building capacity at the local level.
Jan

Jan

Permalink Reply by ROBINSON WIKANA MUKANGAYI on November 23, 2009 at 5:47am

Telecentre.org must try to reach out to those areas that sound marginalized. It should try to embrace all. All in the sense that we should for instance seem to be guided by the fact that every country for instance must have at least a Telecentre or Telecentres. The movement must also be involved in other sectors to that the imapct is felt. If for example i am a member of the movement and i am involved in anything, I should always sound up that I am a member of Telecntre.org.
continous training must be carried out to warm members up on the latest developments and even invite them for seminars, workshops and conferences on the way forward of the movement.
There should always be continous reporting of the ongoings in our respective areas. I should as a member feel obliged to testify on some of the developments in my community and this will go a long way supporting our newlstter as well.
Such questionnaires must be brought up time after time for any new ideas and suggestions.

Permalink Reply by Bevis England on November 24, 2009 at 3:47pm

The real question here is "WHO are we trying to influence and WHY". Once we have answered this the HOW becomes easier to identify. After twenty years worrking in the telecentre environment it has become obvious to me that clarity of focus (who and why) is absolutely critical when planning telecentres: it is equally critical when planning 'infleunce' campaigns.

Permalink Reply by Ian Clifford on November 26, 2009 at 3:21am

From my experience one of the most valuable roles that the Telecentre.org Foundation could play is in building the understanding of the media of the role that telecentres play in digital inclusion, and the importance of digital inclusion as an issue as a whole. I generally feel that while the promotion and facilitation of the sharing of resources (and networking and all of the other existing roles that Telecentre.org plays) is a very good means to efficiency and effectiveness, supporting advocacy is crucial to our networks gaining the recognition that they deserve at national (or regional) level.

Telecentre.org Foundation will likely not be able to intervene in advocacy at a national (or even perhaps at a regional level), but if I were able to point my media and governments to a global body who is respected as a thought leader, and who provides a body of evidence of the impact of telecentres in digital inclusion (and in the other areas that they support), then this will help me to be more effective in the advocacy that I want to pursue. They key challenge that I face in advocacy is that my national media aren’t really very interested in digital inclusion. It is not a topic they have at the top of their agendas. Formal education, employment, health, environment, energy, (and an aging population in the UK and Europe) are all key issues for them and they don’t even see DI as a related topic. We, of course, see DI as related and instrumental to all of these topics, but getting the media to see this is a challenge. If we were able to have endorsement of telecentres as a key tool to tackle DI (which then in turn hits the varied public agendas) my job in convincing my government to strategically invest would be so much easier.

I do recognize that in many parts of the world there is little government investment at all in telecentres, and so I feel very lucky that my government and many of those across Europe do at least recognise that it is a function of government. This should also be something that Telecentre.org Foundation champions, that Government funding is a model that should be replicated in parts of the world where it is less prevalent. Both this and promotion to the media requires impact evidence. Governments and media thrive on evidence, and so the development of impact evidence case studies, as well as country model case studies would be useful to convince governments to invest in Telecentres as a model. Combining this with increasing the awareness of media would lead to a significant development for the telecentre movement.

Finally I would add that in the UK we have a “celebrity” face for Digital Inclusion, a Digital Inclusion Champion, and this has helped to galvanise both governments and media, and so this could be another approach that could be taken to a world stage.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7
• 8
• Next ›
• Page