[governance] ACCESS TO ICT/ INTERNET

jlfullsack jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr
Wed Sep 19 08:59:11 EDT 2007 

Should I simply add that as far as the "Digital divide" is concerned, not 
all the infos and coms implicit to this locution are digital ! Radio, 
television (mostly) and other media such as newspapers are still ... analog.
This being said I fully agree Michel's and Robert's (within others) critical 
approach.
For our French speaking readers I'd refer to the book published by the 
Commmission nationale francaise pour l'UNESCO, entitled "La Societe de 
l'information" : Glossaire critique . This is to say that this critical 
approach on (i.a.) "Digital Divide" is also shared by the UN agency.
Jean-Louis Fullsack

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Norbert Bollow" <nb at bollow.ch>
To: <gurstein at gmail.com>
Cc: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>
Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 2:16 PM
Subject: Re: [governance] ACCESS TO ICT/ INTERNET


> Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Norbert and all, can I suggest that we be rather more careful with our
>> terminology...
>>
>> The term "Digital Divide" has become something of a "portmanteau" and
>> tends to mean whatever the user wishes it to mean -- all the way from
>> simple available access (the 5? kilometers from a pay telephone as the
>> standard means for defining telephone access being transferred to
>> something similar for the Internet) to various forms of "divides" being
>> conflated within the Digital Divide notion (literacy divides, financial
>> divides, disability divides etc.etc.) to actually being concerned with
>> how the access is used.
>
> What I like about the term "digital divide" is precisely that it
> expresses this discontent with a situation in which those who are
> already disadvantaged unfairly become even more disadvantaged,
> _without_ implying a particular model for describing and trying to
> address the specifics of the problem.
>
> I think that it's important to separate this emotional side of the
> issue from the needed scientifically fact-oriented processes for
> addressing it.
>
> I often put "digital divide" in quotation marks (as e.g. in the
> posting that you replied to, see below) in order to emphasize that I
> consider it an emotional term rather than a precisely-defined one.
>
> By contrast, "digital solidarity" is a term which totally fails to
> make this separation and which is therefore IMO totally unsuitable
> as a basis for any kind of fact-oriented discussion of the issues.
> Nevertheless "Digital Solidarity" would be a great name e.g. for an
> NGO aiming at promoting a particular set of solution strategies for
> "digital divide" problems.
>
>> The term itself has been quite severely critiqued by myself
>> http://www.firstmonday.dk/issues/issue8_12/gurstein/index.html among
>> others... (I choose to talk about "effective use", but others talk about
>> "real use", "practical applications" and so on.
>
> I agree that it is essential to go beyond mere "access" in the sense
> of being able to send and receive IP datagrams and work out precise
> models for the problems that need to be solved, on the basis of
> concepts like the "effective use" .
>
> Greetings,
> Norbert.
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Norbert Bollow [mailto:nb at bollow.ch]
>> Sent: September 17, 2007 2:34 AM
>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> Subject: Re: [governance] ACCESS TO ICT/ INTERNET
>> e
>>
>> kwasi boakye-akyeampong <kboakye1 at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> > Would you share your opinions on the following question, those who
>> > think it's a silly question should ignore it and accept my apologies.
>> >
>> > - Since some would rightly argue that the digital divide exists even
>> > - in advanced countries, should we judge ourselves by the efforts
>> > - (money, resources, etc.) or the results (the impact our efforts
>> > - have made)?
>> >
>> > The answer may seem obvious depending where one would choose to argue
>> > from but I need your opinions.
>>
>> How about a rating system from 0 to 10 e.g. as follows (with
>> subdivisions between the points such as e.g. "0.5" when there is both
>> widespread non-awareness and denial but nothing else
>> happening)
>>
>> 0 - hardly anyone is aware of the need to address digital divide issues
>> 1 - existence or importance of the main digital divide issues is denied
>> 2 - some money is spend on addressing digital divide issues without any
>>     serious measurement and evaluation of results
>> 3 - some serious efforts with evaluation of results are made, but there
>>     is no clarity about whether sufficient progress is made that it can
>>     be expected that with the current level of effort ans current
>>     strategies, the main "digital divide" problems will eventually get
>>     solved
>> 4 - the fundamental economic causes of the "digital divide" problems
>>     are well-understood and adequate strategies for solving the
>>     problems have been developed and empirically verified
>> 5 - adequate strategies for solving the problems have been politically
>>     accepted and adequate funding has been made available
>> 6 - the "digital divide" problems have been verifiedly solved in some
>>     of the areas under consideration, and in the remaining areas at
>>     least serious efforts are made
>> 7 - the "digital divide" problems have been verifiedly solved in most
>>     of the areas under consideration, and in the remaining areas the
>>     remaining obstacles are well-understood and are getting effectively
>>     addressed.
>> 8 - the "digital divide" problems have been verifiedly solved in 90%
>>     of the areas under consideration, and in the remaining areas the
>>     remaining obstacles are well-understood and are getting effectively
>>     addressed.
>> 9 - the "digital divide" problems have been verifiedly solved in all
>>     of the areas under consideration, and strategies are being developed
>>     for preventing this category of problems from resurfacing
>> 10 -not only have the "digital divide" problems have been verifiedly
>>     solved in all of the areas under consideration, but also there are
>>     adequate strategies and programs in place (with adequate long-term
>>     assurance of funding) for preventing this category of problems
>>     from resurfacing
>
>
> -- 
> Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch>                      http://Norbert.ch
> President of the Swiss Internet User Group SIUG    http://SIUG.ch
> Working on establishing a non-corrupt and
> truly /open/ international standards organization  http://OpenISO.org
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> 


-- 
J'utilise la version gratuíte de SPAMfighter pour utilisateurs privés.
Ce programme a supprimé10701 d'e-mails spam à ce jour.
Les utilisateurs qui paient n'ont pas ce message dans leurse-mails.
Obtenez la version gratuite de SPAMfighter ici: http://www.spamfighter.com/lfr



____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

More information about the Governance mailing list