Balaji G | 1 Jul 2006 13:08
Picon
Favicon

Re: the cooperative way for India?

Dear Arun The article attached by you below has some pointers to the real issue. On rural connectivity situation in India, the only thing happening is the Government inititaive on CSC. Most others, including large corporates and NGOs, stop at announcements and events or research papers, and do not even have intention to do something substantive. Even the intention to participate in several PPP (Public Private partnesrhip) programmes is for them to benefit from Government largesse only. So, who is interested in furtherance of cause of rural? The issue, that comes to mind is, why should the onus be always on the government for evertything? Balaji

Arun Mehta wrote:
Leading up to the World Summit on Free Information Infrastructures, wsfii.org, in Dharamsala, international participants may be interested in understanding the rural connectivity situation in India. The article below is right, when it says that mostly so far, all we have had is pilot projects, and lots of conferences. The government is indeed trying to set up 100,000 telecenters, but so far, two years after Mission 2007 was launched, there is little evidence of anything on the ground. At the London wsfii, I predicted, hoping to be proved wrong, that not much would have been achieved by the government bythe time of the 2006 wsfii. Actually, a lot less has been achieved, than I expected. As regards viability, why do we forget Metcalfe's law: the value of a network is proportional to the square of its size? In other words, viability will improve dramatically if we network all 600,000 instead of just one-sixth: if 6 villages share a telecenter, a lot of the business will be lost: all the communications between the 6! People surely communicate with neighboring villages a lot more than they do with people far away. The old and the disabled will not be able to use a telecenter, unless it is in their own village. The Dharamsala WSFII could not be happening at a more opportune time, to point out another way. No longer do we need large telcos to condescend to provide connectivity to villages. People can do it themselves, as the airjaldi network in Dharamsala and others around the world so ably demonstrate. Arun http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1648695.cms Rural connect: The cooperative way MOHAN MISHRA On the face of it, the growing Naxalite menace may be treated as a law and order problem. But the root cause of the issue, as articulated by Dr MS Swaminathan, the father of Green Revolution, is: "Ignore farmers, see Red spread". Naxalism, along with farmers' suicides, are only the visible symptoms of a deeper disease: the worsening plight of agriculture dependent population and widening urban-rural disparities. To see how stark these disparities are, just take a look at the teledensity figures. Despite the euphoria over recent telecom growth, rural teledensity remains a measly 2% compared to 31% in urban areas. The teledensity growth in the country has been led by higher urban volumes while large parts of rural India still remain unconnected. Rural development is an urgent need and towards that goal, connect-ing the villages is the first step. There has also been a growing interest from all quarters including numerous corporates, in solving the problems of rural India using Information and Communication Technology (ICT). While there have been a slew of initiatives and announcements, substantive results have been far and few. One reason is that many tend to treat the matter as primarily a technology issue. The solutions offered would, therefore, have been around innovation at the product level and range from the earlier Simputers to the recent $100 laptop. These are only some options to the challenge of connecting villages. Very few have attempted to put together an integrated solution to overcome the challenge of connecting rural India. Second, sustainability remains a major stumbling block in the game of rolling out rural kiosks. No one has still found a satisfactory answer to the issue. Says Dr MS Swaminathan, whose MSSRF village kiosks are an industry forerunner: "Economic sustainability may not happen in immediate terms, but it is more a question of social sustainability." Pankaj Baveja, founder of Project Param, and a pioneer in rural computing, endorses these views, but adds: "That does not mean that solutions to sustainability are not possible. Issues are not so much to do with choices in technology and connectivity. It is more to do with ownership-operations model and with the nuances in implementation." Third, with the trend of showcasing, only conferences and seminars have been proliferating while there hasn't been substantive work on field. For substantive achievements in connecting rural India, a way forward may be the cooperative way. A shining example of marriage of technology with cooperative linkages for real grassroots transformation is Amul. Its manufacturing facilities are a point of envy for even the western world, and so are its IT-enabled logistics. In the words of the Amul CEO BM Vyas: "Amul is not a food company. It is an IT company in the food business". That is true rural empowerment using ICT. Cooperatives have been deeply entwined with the lives of rural people, fostering economic activity with linkages extending right up to the grassroots level. They have been playing an important role in rural development. Not many may be aware that in the country there are over 5 lakh cooperative societies with membership exceeding 22 crore. But more important, the principles of equity along with economic growth are embodied in the basic co-operative structures, and hence the co-operative way is the natural way for rural development -- and for reducing disparities. Recognising the need for rural development, the government is doing its bit by launching a bold initiative of setting up 100,000 Common Service Centres by 2007. Pankaj Baveja, says: "The needs in the vil-lages are so high that this programme is bound to deliver positive re-sults. So, progress it must in its implementation." The task of rural development requires a concerted cooperative effort and participation from all quarters. Along with the government and the co-operative sector, private industry needs to come forward to contribute substantively towards rural transformation, taking things beyond limited CSR activities. The visionaries and captains in the industry need to look at rural India -- not as mere markets -- but as investments. And this they need to do in their enlightened self interest. That may just be the key to sustain-able rural transformation. _______________________________________________ wsfii-discuss mailing list wsfii-discuss <at> lists.okfn.org http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/wsfii-discuss

View this message in context: Re: the cooperative way for India?
Sent from the wsfii-discuss forum at Nabble.com.
_______________________________________________
wsfii-discuss mailing list
wsfii-discuss <at> lists.okfn.org
http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/wsfii-discuss
john wilson | 1 Jul 2006 15:16
Picon
Favicon

Re: the cooperative way for India?

Balaji and all,

Yes you highlight key points - re. government rhetoric and statements of 
good intent, and  opportunist projects designed to benefit from government 
funding. Whilst little is actually happening on the ground. Such political 
game-plays have a habit of leaving "people" out.

Some remarks. At the risk of repeating myself.

Communities in real need can end up being doubly exploited. Government and 
public bodies tend to build-up expectations for matters of political 
expediency. Then pilot projects that attract funding can often fail due to 
ill-conceived social formulations or else opportunist motives. The pendulum 
can tend to swing from hyped-up expectations to declarations of failure. 
Meanwhile both government and incumbent telco have bought time, and market 
activity evolves so that the window of opportunity for local, "first-mile" 
community network projects is changed.

At our Djusrsland convention 2 years we explored issues of strategy in a 
session "The Community First Mile: Strategies for Broadband Access", 
foregrounding the "social" as opposed to the "technology" aspect of 
community projects.

The convention also highlighted the way in which the Djurslands.net had 
broken from the culture of dependancy on government and realized a 
significant scale of growth through its own "self-help", "co-operative" 
approach (in a rural region with strong residual traditions of 
agricultural/fisherman's co-operativism). - I have not seen an update since 
then, to see how the Djurslands.net project may have developed in the 
evolving telecoms environment, and to what extent it may have managed to 
maintain a democratic community management and  economic sustainability. Has 
an updated case study of the Djursland project been produced recently? 
Lessons of strategy and "politics"?

The Djursland convention also highlighted Onno Purbo's community wireless 
networking activities in Indonesia, regarding a grassroots initiative 
independent of government support/dependancy. Subsequently Onno presented to 
an Open Spectrum UK event in London, see blog notes of his presentation here 
< http://openspectrum.org.uk/wiki/wikka.php?wakka=EventOSUK01blog >. The 
relevance of Onno's "rural Indonesia" activities to "the rural India 
situation"?

The convention also held a workshop titled "A project that failed", where 
Dave Hughes explored his wireless project activities in Wales re issues of 
government funding, project development, community needs, etc.

In my last posting to this list I recommended that attention be given to 
strategies for community project development, with focussed attention to the 
"social" as much as the "technology" aspect of the challenge. Its a real 
challenge. Its political. Otherwise history can be relied upon to repeat 
itself. Well-intentioned projects bite the dust. And make no mistake, your 
protagonists *are* applying their minds to putting you out of business.

Since the Djursland Institute has recieved its funding, I wonder whether it 
has given attention to a White Paper on project design and strategy re 
community-based assets development? Likewise any other funded advocacy 
bodies that have some relationship to the "wsfii" communities of interest, 
for example the OPLAN Foundation which was set up after the Djursland 
convention (with World Bank funding)?

Where's the politics?

John

>From: Balaji G <balaji_g1947 <at> yahoo.com>
>Reply-To: Discuss list on the World Summit on Free Information 
>Infrastructure<wsfii-discuss <at> lists.okfn.org>
>To: wsfii-discuss <at> lists.okfn.org
>Subject: Re: [wsfii-discuss] the cooperative way for India?
>Date: Sat, 1 Jul 2006 04:08:49 -0700 (PDT)
>
>
>Dear Arun
>
>The article attached by you below has some pointers to the real issue.
>
>On rural connectivity situation in India, the only thing happening is the
>Government inititaive on CSC.  Most others, including large corporates and
>NGOs, stop at announcements and events or research papers,  and do not even
>have intention to do something substantive.
>
>Even the intention to participate in several PPP (Public Private
>partnesrhip) programmes is for them to benefit from Government largesse
>only. So, who is interested in furtherance of cause of rural?
>
>The issue, that comes to mind  is,  why should the onus be always on the
>government for evertything?
>
>Balaji
>
>
>
>Arun Mehta wrote:
> >
> > Leading up to the World Summit on Free Information Infrastructures,
> > wsfii.org, in Dharamsala, international participants may be interested
> > in understanding the rural connectivity situation in India.
> >
> > The article below is right, when it says that mostly so far, all we
> > have had is pilot projects, and lots of conferences. The government is
> > indeed trying to set up 100,000 telecenters, but so far, two years
> > after Mission 2007 was launched, there is little evidence of anything
> > on the ground. At the London wsfii, I predicted, hoping to be proved
> > wrong, that not much would have been achieved by the government bythe
> > time of the 2006 wsfii. Actually, a lot less has been achieved, than I
> > expected.
> >
> > As regards viability, why do we forget Metcalfe's law: the value of a
> > network is proportional to the square of its size? In other words,
> > viability will improve dramatically if we network all 600,000 instead
> > of just one-sixth: if 6 villages share a telecenter, a lot of the
> > business will be lost: all the communications between the 6! People
> > surely communicate with neighboring villages a lot more than they do
> > with people far away. The old and the disabled will not be able to use
> > a telecenter, unless it is in their own village.
> >
> > The Dharamsala WSFII could not be happening at a more opportune time,
> > to point out another way. No longer do we need large telcos to
> > condescend to provide connectivity to villages. People can do it
> > themselves, as the airjaldi network in Dharamsala and others around
> > the world so ably demonstrate.
> > Arun
> >
> > http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1648695.cms
> > Rural connect: The cooperative way
> > MOHAN MISHRA
> >
> > On the face of it, the growing Naxalite menace may be treated as a law
> > and order problem. But the root cause of the issue, as articulated by
> > Dr MS Swaminathan, the father of Green Revolution, is: "Ignore
> > farmers, see Red spread". Naxalism, along with farmers' suicides, are
> > only the visible symptoms of a deeper disease: the worsening plight of
> > agriculture dependent population and widening urban-rural disparities.
> >
> > To see how stark these disparities are, just take a look at the
> > teledensity figures. Despite the euphoria over recent telecom growth,
> > rural teledensity remains a measly 2% compared to 31% in urban areas.
> > The teledensity growth in the country has been led by higher urban
> > volumes while large parts of rural India still remain unconnected.
> >
> > Rural development is an urgent need and towards that goal, connect-ing
> > the villages is the first step. There has also been a growing interest
> > from all quarters including numerous corporates, in solving the
> > problems of rural India using Information and Communication Technology
> > (ICT). While there have been a slew of initiatives and announcements,
> > substantive results have been far and few.
> >
> > One reason is that many tend to treat the matter as primarily a
> > technology issue. The solutions offered would, therefore, have been
> > around innovation at the product level and range from the earlier
> > Simputers to the recent $100 laptop.
> >
> > These are only some options to the challenge of connecting villages.
> > Very few have attempted to put together an integrated solution to
> > overcome the challenge of connecting rural India. Second,
> > sustainability remains a major stumbling block in the game of rolling
> > out rural kiosks.
> >
> > No one has still found a satisfactory answer to the issue. Says Dr MS
> > Swaminathan, whose MSSRF village kiosks are an industry forerunner:
> > "Economic sustainability may not happen in immediate terms, but it is
> > more a question of social sustainability."
> >
> > Pankaj Baveja, founder of Project Param, and a pioneer in rural
> > computing, endorses these views, but adds: "That does not mean that
> > solutions to sustainability are not possible. Issues are not so much
> > to do with choices in technology and connectivity.
> >
> > It is more to do with ownership-operations model and with the nuances
> > in implementation." Third, with the trend of showcasing, only
> > conferences and seminars have been proliferating while there hasn't
> > been substantive work on field.
> >
> >  For substantive achievements in connecting rural India, a way forward
> > may be the cooperative way. A shining example of marriage of
> > technology with cooperative linkages for real grassroots
> > transformation is Amul.
> >
> > Its manufacturing facilities are a point of envy for even the western
> > world, and so are its IT-enabled logistics. In the words of the Amul
> > CEO BM Vyas: "Amul is not a food company. It is an IT company in the
> > food business". That is true rural empowerment using ICT.
> >
> > Cooperatives have been deeply entwined with the lives of rural people,
> > fostering economic activity with linkages extending right up to the
> > grassroots level. They have been playing an important role in rural
> > development.
> >
> > Not many may be aware that in the country there are over 5 lakh
> > cooperative societies with membership exceeding 22 crore. But more
> > important, the principles of equity along with economic growth are
> > embodied in the basic co-operative structures, and hence the
> > co-operative way is the natural way for rural development -- and for
> > reducing disparities.
> >
> > Recognising the need for rural development, the government is doing
> > its bit by launching a bold initiative of setting up 100,000 Common
> > Service Centres by 2007. Pankaj Baveja, says: "The needs in the
> > vil-lages are so high that this programme is bound to deliver positive
> > re-sults. So, progress it must in its implementation."
> >
> > The task of rural development requires a concerted cooperative effort
> > and participation from all quarters. Along with the government and the
> > co-operative sector, private industry needs to come forward to
> > contribute substantively towards rural transformation, taking things
> > beyond limited CSR activities.
> >
> > The visionaries and captains in the industry need to look at rural
> > India -- not as mere markets -- but as investments. And this they need
> > to do in their enlightened self interest. That may just be the key to
> > sustain-able rural transformation.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > wsfii-discuss mailing list
> > wsfii-discuss <at> lists.okfn.org
> > http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/wsfii-discuss
> >
> >
>
>--
>View this message in context: 
>http://www.nabble.com/the-cooperative-way-for-India--tf1831710.html#a5131521
>Sent from the wsfii-discuss forum at Nabble.com.

>_______________________________________________
>wsfii-discuss mailing list
>wsfii-discuss <at> lists.okfn.org
>http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/wsfii-discuss
vvcrishna | 1 Jul 2006 16:17
Gravatar

Re: the cooperative way for India?

At a recent meeting on community radio (almost anyone would agree, the first
step towards building an engaged rural populace, but not India, which still
slavishly hews to colonial lines established in and for another time and yes,
another place), I was told that we have the proud record of 30,000
internationally funded projects - all closed despite some successful 'proofs of
concept'.

I don't understand Balaji's question: 'why should the government bear the onus
for everything?'. I don't think that's anyone's case in black and white, but
surely the government needs to learn to step aside in areas (such as basic
communication) where it has failed to provide a service despite enjoying a
mandated monopoly for decades, and now seeks to treat the medium itself as a
revenue generator, ignoring its potential for positive growth?

Quoting john wilson <johnresearch <at> hotmail.com>:

> Balaji and all,
> 
> Yes you highlight key points - re. government rhetoric and statements of 
> good intent, and  opportunist projects designed to benefit from government 
> funding. Whilst little is actually happening on the ground. Such political 
> game-plays have a habit of leaving "people" out.
> 
> Some remarks. At the risk of repeating myself.
> 
> Communities in real need can end up being doubly exploited. Government and 
> public bodies tend to build-up expectations for matters of political 
> expediency. Then pilot projects that attract funding can often fail due to 
> ill-conceived social formulations or else opportunist motives. The pendulum 
> can tend to swing from hyped-up expectations to declarations of failure. 
> Meanwhile both government and incumbent telco have bought time, and market 
> activity evolves so that the window of opportunity for local, "first-mile" 
> community network projects is changed.
> 
> At our Djusrsland convention 2 years we explored issues of strategy in a 
> session "The Community First Mile: Strategies for Broadband Access", 
> foregrounding the "social" as opposed to the "technology" aspect of 
> community projects.
> 
> The convention also highlighted the way in which the Djurslands.net had 
> broken from the culture of dependancy on government and realized a 
> significant scale of growth through its own "self-help", "co-operative" 
> approach (in a rural region with strong residual traditions of 
> agricultural/fisherman's co-operativism). - I have not seen an update since 
> then, to see how the Djurslands.net project may have developed in the 
> evolving telecoms environment, and to what extent it may have managed to 
> maintain a democratic community management and  economic sustainability. Has
> 
> an updated case study of the Djursland project been produced recently? 
> Lessons of strategy and "politics"?
> 
> The Djursland convention also highlighted Onno Purbo's community wireless 
> networking activities in Indonesia, regarding a grassroots initiative 
> independent of government support/dependancy. Subsequently Onno presented to
> 
> an Open Spectrum UK event in London, see blog notes of his presentation here
> 
> < http://openspectrum.org.uk/wiki/wikka.php?wakka=EventOSUK01blog >. The 
> relevance of Onno's "rural Indonesia" activities to "the rural India 
> situation"?
> 
> The convention also held a workshop titled "A project that failed", where 
> Dave Hughes explored his wireless project activities in Wales re issues of 
> government funding, project development, community needs, etc.
> 
> In my last posting to this list I recommended that attention be given to 
> strategies for community project development, with focussed attention to the
> 
> "social" as much as the "technology" aspect of the challenge. Its a real 
> challenge. Its political. Otherwise history can be relied upon to repeat 
> itself. Well-intentioned projects bite the dust. And make no mistake, your 
> protagonists *are* applying their minds to putting you out of business.
> 
> Since the Djursland Institute has recieved its funding, I wonder whether it 
> has given attention to a White Paper on project design and strategy re 
> community-based assets development? Likewise any other funded advocacy 
> bodies that have some relationship to the "wsfii" communities of interest, 
> for example the OPLAN Foundation which was set up after the Djursland 
> convention (with World Bank funding)?
> 
> Where's the politics?
> 
> John
> 
> 
> >From: Balaji G <balaji_g1947 <at> yahoo.com>
> >Reply-To: Discuss list on the World Summit on Free Information 
> >Infrastructure<wsfii-discuss <at> lists.okfn.org>
> >To: wsfii-discuss <at> lists.okfn.org
> >Subject: Re: [wsfii-discuss] the cooperative way for India?
> >Date: Sat, 1 Jul 2006 04:08:49 -0700 (PDT)
> >
> >
> >Dear Arun
> >
> >The article attached by you below has some pointers to the real issue.
> >
> >On rural connectivity situation in India, the only thing happening is the
> >Government inititaive on CSC.  Most others, including large corporates and
> >NGOs, stop at announcements and events or research papers,  and do not even
> >have intention to do something substantive.
> >
> >Even the intention to participate in several PPP (Public Private
> >partnesrhip) programmes is for them to benefit from Government largesse
> >only. So, who is interested in furtherance of cause of rural?
> >
> >The issue, that comes to mind  is,  why should the onus be always on the
> >government for evertything?
> >
> >Balaji
> >
> >
> >
> >Arun Mehta wrote:
> > >
> > > Leading up to the World Summit on Free Information Infrastructures,
> > > wsfii.org, in Dharamsala, international participants may be interested
> > > in understanding the rural connectivity situation in India.
> > >
> > > The article below is right, when it says that mostly so far, all we
> > > have had is pilot projects, and lots of conferences. The government is
> > > indeed trying to set up 100,000 telecenters, but so far, two years
> > > after Mission 2007 was launched, there is little evidence of anything
> > > on the ground. At the London wsfii, I predicted, hoping to be proved
> > > wrong, that not much would have been achieved by the government bythe
> > > time of the 2006 wsfii. Actually, a lot less has been achieved, than I
> > > expected.
> > >
> > > As regards viability, why do we forget Metcalfe's law: the value of a
> > > network is proportional to the square of its size? In other words,
> > > viability will improve dramatically if we network all 600,000 instead
> > > of just one-sixth: if 6 villages share a telecenter, a lot of the
> > > business will be lost: all the communications between the 6! People
> > > surely communicate with neighboring villages a lot more than they do
> > > with people far away. The old and the disabled will not be able to use
> > > a telecenter, unless it is in their own village.
> > >
> > > The Dharamsala WSFII could not be happening at a more opportune time,
> > > to point out another way. No longer do we need large telcos to
> > > condescend to provide connectivity to villages. People can do it
> > > themselves, as the airjaldi network in Dharamsala and others around
> > > the world so ably demonstrate.
> > > Arun
> > >
> > > http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1648695.cms
> > > Rural connect: The cooperative way
> > > MOHAN MISHRA
> > >
> > > On the face of it, the growing Naxalite menace may be treated as a law
> > > and order problem. But the root cause of the issue, as articulated by
> > > Dr MS Swaminathan, the father of Green Revolution, is: "Ignore
> > > farmers, see Red spread". Naxalism, along with farmers' suicides, are
> > > only the visible symptoms of a deeper disease: the worsening plight of
> > > agriculture dependent population and widening urban-rural disparities.
> > >
> > > To see how stark these disparities are, just take a look at the
> > > teledensity figures. Despite the euphoria over recent telecom growth,
> > > rural teledensity remains a measly 2% compared to 31% in urban areas.
> > > The teledensity growth in the country has been led by higher urban
> > > volumes while large parts of rural India still remain unconnected.
> > >
> > > Rural development is an urgent need and towards that goal, connect-ing
> > > the villages is the first step. There has also been a growing interest
> > > from all quarters including numerous corporates, in solving the
> > > problems of rural India using Information and Communication Technology
> > > (ICT). While there have been a slew of initiatives and announcements,
> > > substantive results have been far and few.
> > >
> > > One reason is that many tend to treat the matter as primarily a
> > > technology issue. The solutions offered would, therefore, have been
> > > around innovation at the product level and range from the earlier
> > > Simputers to the recent $100 laptop.
> > >
> > > These are only some options to the challenge of connecting villages.
> > > Very few have attempted to put together an integrated solution to
> > > overcome the challenge of connecting rural India. Second,
> > > sustainability remains a major stumbling block in the game of rolling
> > > out rural kiosks.
> > >
> > > No one has still found a satisfactory answer to the issue. Says Dr MS
> > > Swaminathan, whose MSSRF village kiosks are an industry forerunner:
> > > "Economic sustainability may not happen in immediate terms, but it is
> > > more a question of social sustainability."
> > >
> > > Pankaj Baveja, founder of Project Param, and a pioneer in rural
> > > computing, endorses these views, but adds: "That does not mean that
> > > solutions to sustainability are not possible. Issues are not so much
> > > to do with choices in technology and connectivity.
> > >
> > > It is more to do with ownership-operations model and with the nuances
> > > in implementation." Third, with the trend of showcasing, only
> > > conferences and seminars have been proliferating while there hasn't
> > > been substantive work on field.
> > >
> > >  For substantive achievements in connecting rural India, a way forward
> > > may be the cooperative way. A shining example of marriage of
> > > technology with cooperative linkages for real grassroots
> > > transformation is Amul.
> > >
> > > Its manufacturing facilities are a point of envy for even the western
> > > world, and so are its IT-enabled logistics. In the words of the Amul
> > > CEO BM Vyas: "Amul is not a food company. It is an IT company in the
> > > food business". That is true rural empowerment using ICT.
> > >
> > > Cooperatives have been deeply entwined with the lives of rural people,
> > > fostering economic activity with linkages extending right up to the
> > > grassroots level. They have been playing an important role in rural
> > > development.
> > >
> > > Not many may be aware that in the country there are over 5 lakh
> > > cooperative societies with membership exceeding 22 crore. But more
> > > important, the principles of equity along with economic growth are
> > > embodied in the basic co-operative structures, and hence the
> > > co-operative way is the natural way for rural development -- and for
> > > reducing disparities.
> > >
> > > Recognising the need for rural development, the government is doing
> > > its bit by launching a bold initiative of setting up 100,000 Common
> > > Service Centres by 2007. Pankaj Baveja, says: "The needs in the
> > > vil-lages are so high that this programme is bound to deliver positive
> > > re-sults. So, progress it must in its implementation."
> > >
> > > The task of rural development requires a concerted cooperative effort
> > > and participation from all quarters. Along with the government and the
> > > co-operative sector, private industry needs to come forward to
> > > contribute substantively towards rural transformation, taking things
> > > beyond limited CSR activities.
> > >
> > > The visionaries and captains in the industry need to look at rural
> > > India -- not as mere markets -- but as investments. And this they need
> > > to do in their enlightened self interest. That may just be the key to
> > > sustain-able rural transformation.
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > wsfii-discuss mailing list
> > > wsfii-discuss <at> lists.okfn.org
> > > http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/wsfii-discuss
> > >
> > >
> >
> >--
> >View this message in context: 
> >http://www.nabble.com/the-cooperative-way-for-India--tf1831710.html#a5131521
> >Sent from the wsfii-discuss forum at Nabble.com.
> 
> 
> >_______________________________________________
> >wsfii-discuss mailing list
> >wsfii-discuss <at> lists.okfn.org
> >http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/wsfii-discuss
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> wsfii-discuss mailing list
> wsfii-discuss <at> lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/wsfii-discuss
> 
proclus | 2 Jul 2006 01:14
Favicon
Gravatar

FOSS, Science, and Public activism


(Sorry if you get more than one copy of this message, but I felt
that it was urgent to get this important info out.)

The values of freedom and openness are crucial to understanding 
itself, so that civilization and public welfare now depend on 
them, as I argue below.  These values may find their best 
expression in the free and open source software (FOSS) movement, 
and the foresightful example of FOSS developers should now be
beneficially applied to many other disciplines in the context of a
global and public Internet.

It is crucial that we occasionally take time to discuss the
reasons _why_ we release our source code, and this is one of 
those occasions.  There are good reasons for the freedom and
openness which are characteristics of FOSS development, reasons
which should receive wider attention now that they can be readily
communicated to other arenas.  The consequences of doing otherwise
are often catastrophic.

For example, it incomprehensible that Genentech could consider
withdrawing a cheap cure for blindness (ARMD) from the market.

http://lists.essential.org/pipermail/random-bits/2006-june/001374.html

The mechanism of this drug is public knowledge.

http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_id=14183567&forum_id=6042

This abhorrent situation is a great example of the kind of thing
that will happen if people don't get behind the values of freedom
and openness that we are espousing.  Please let Genentech know
that you find what they are doing offensive.  Publicize the mechanism
so that new compounds can be obtained as replacements.  For the 
future, continued vociferous public activism is required to prevent
such outrages from occurring in the future.

It becomes clear that the compounds which come from common roots,
fruits, and vegetables are a shared human heritage and the free and
open source of the future.  Tannins are another interesting case in
point, because as molecules, and as anti-oxidents, they are similar to
resveratrol (resV), and that molecular mechanism has been anchored to
the public domain via a prior art declaration.  It is a so-called
CR-memetic, which may increase healthy human longevity by many
decades.  Here are some links about it.

Resveratrol mechanism posts from GNU-Darwin list
http://proclus.gnu-darwin.org/gdposts.html

CR protocol for human bodies
http://proclus.gnu-darwin.org/bootstrap.html

Here is some important recent news about it.

http://www.imminst.org/forum/index.php?s=&act=print&client=printer&f=237&t=10749

It is exciting to suppose that people can get off the pharmaceuticals
that they are taking with calorie restriction or CR-memetics.  I
personally am trying to get off the cholesterol drug Pravachol, a
statin compound, starting a few of weeks ago.  Write me, and I'll let
you know how it turns out.  From the article...

"Fontana says ...  evidence of "younger" hearts in people on calorie
restriction, suggest that humans on CR have the same adaptive
responses as did animals whose rates of aging were slowed by CR."

I think that it is time to look at the tannins in tobacco leaves.  
There may be other treasures lurking there too.  As you may be
aware there is ample public research into any possible beneficial
compounds that may be obtained from tobacco leaves.  The mechanisms
are there waiting to be discovered.  If you want to post them, just
reply to me and I'd be delighted to host them.

The public establishment of prior art is a time-honed method of
entering inventions into the public domain.  We now have other
methods at our disposal as well.   If you are planning to establish
prior art against future CR-memetic related patents, you might want
to have a look at www.creativecommons.org.  Perhaps it goes without
saying at this point that you should please choose a license that
provides for free and broad public access to your memetic.

In that way you will assure that the public health is served by 
anchoring them to the public common, where they cannot be exploited
by those who would withhold them for their own profit.  The DRM 
situation is precisely analogous to this.  Can you imagine doing
science in a world where your ability to read and write your data is
filtered through secret protocols that are hidden from you? I
recommend the Defective By Design campaign to fight the outrage of
DRM, which is incompatible with the scientific pursuit.

http://www.defectivebydesign.org/

It is clear that scientific tools must be demonstrably and
penetratingly understood, or else our claims will likely be skewed
and called into question.  Free and open source software is
a great example of how to make your science verifiable to the
public.  Establishing prior art against future patents is 
another good one, which is precisely analogous in method, 
making the result explicit to the public, free and open to all.
Thank goodness for the free and open software movement, which
gave us such a great example of how to serve the public in this
manner.

I am willing to grant that there are particular exceptions to
these rules of freedom and openness, and such exceptions may be
relatively harmless; however, let us posit the opposite, that
freedom and openness are _not_ crucial to understanding.  Think of
the implications.  When people are compelled to learn, they do not
receive the intended message.  It is not understood correctly
or completely.   When crucial facts are withheld from the people
you are trying to teach they become paranoid, possibly unteachable. 
Freedom and openness are obviously the best approach to understanding.

This is not a metaphor for the pursuit of science, but a fact. 
We are learning from nature, and it is ultimately required that
our tools be demonstrably and penetratingly understood, or else
we will receive incorrect lessons from nature.  Clearly this
requires public access to the source code and more.  This 
is why many of us are pressing for public access to scientific
publications.

Moreover FOSS tools are becoming ever more important to the
pursuit of the scientific endeavor itself.  In our biophysics
department we are obsolescing proprietary hardware and software
in favor of open standards and free software, which is a
widespread phenomenon in the science sector, and sure to continue.
We build most of the workstations ourselves with commodity hardware,
but we also have some clusters running Debian and FedoraCore.

Some of you will know that I am the lead developer for the
GNU-Darwin distribution.  GNU-Darwin has a FOSS operating system,
which is getting alot of press these days.  Here is an example

How Apple and Microsoft are advancing desktop Linux
http://www.desktopLinux.com/news/ns7294331817.html

I see the article as counter-productive against building a FOSS
coalition that includes democracy, freedom, and public access 
activists, Apple, GNU-Darwin, GNU, and GNU/Linux all linked
together in spectrum.

It is important to alert the whole FOSS community that Darwin
cannot be classified as a free or open source operation system
as of the Darwin-8 revision, because AppleACPIplatform-39 which
is required to boot the system is proprietary.  It is notable that
only the current version of Darwin from Apple is a non-free OS.
GNU-Darwin has a free version, an earlier revision that includes
the source code.  It is FOSS, and we call upon Apple to maintain
Darwin as such, as it has been in the past.  We hope that the
current situation with the kernel and ACPI driver will soon be
remedied so that Darwin will continue as a FOSS OS.

We are asking for free software developers to please write to the
*nix core of Darwin, which is the core OS for both Mac OS X and
GNU-Darwin OS.  Darwin OS, which underlies both systems, comprises
parts from GNU, the BSD's, mach, plus Apple's substantial
contributions to the free software community.  Be consistent with your
philosophy and avoid linkage to proprietary binaries, such as OpenGL
and CoreAudio, except when it is imperatively required in order to
lead users to the values of software freedom.  Under that principle,
another reason to maintain compatibility with the *nix core, is so
that your code will be readily portable to new platforms and usable
by free-software-only aficionados too.  

GNU-Darwin OS is not an obsolete implementation of Darwin OS, or to be
superseded by Mac OS X.  We are trying to lead users to freedom, not
away from it.  By maintaining Darwin core compatibility your code will
remain valuable as the marketplace and industry continues to evolve
(trust me here), particularly as DRM-related problems continue to come
forward. Of course, that means releasing your source code under a FOSS
license, such as APSL.  Darwin OS is a free and open source operating
system that is not going away, so try to focus your coding towards
supporting that standard instead of proprietary software.

Here is the essence of the current problem with Darwin OS.  Apple
replaced working boot code with the following proprietary drivers, 
which are required for the system to boot.

Darwin-7:
AppleAPIC.kext/
Applei386genericplatform.kext/

Darwin-8:
AppleACPIplatform

In addition the kernel (xnu) has been taken proprietary in the
recent revisions.  We are not asking for Apple to give away such
things, but rather to continue maintaining Darwin OS as FOSS, which
it already was. 

After repeated attempts by many FOSS developers to get this
situation remedied, nothing has happened.  It is now time for us to
better use the measures at our disposal in order to assure that
Darwin OS remains free and open.  If you are unhappy that xnu and 
the boot drivers have not been released, I would encourage you to
spread your dissatisfaction to other forums, so that Apple will take
notice and commit to a workable free and open Darwin OS from now on.  

Moving on to coalition strategy now, some of you may not know that
GNU/Linux system administration is one of my day jobs.  I manage a
wide range of systems.  Here is a screen-shot of my work desktop, so
that you can see I use the same tools at work that I use at home at
night on GNU-Darwin.  (weekends too, so please read I am your friend)

http://proclus.gnu-darwin.org/debian.html

The only time that I ever use proprietary software is when I am trying
to help other users learn free and open source free software.  I'm a 
long time Apple and GNU/Linux user, and here is the old proof doc ;-}.

http://proclus.tripod.com/indulge.html

Now, it is embarrassing but, I want you to have a look at my cv.

http://biophysics.med.jhmi.edu/love/thesis/cv6.html

In all my years I have never used Microsoft Windows.  There are only
two exceptions to this statement, where I was helping Windows users to
access our servers at Hopkins.  Clearly, you can get a few things done
without it ;-}.

One of the primary reasons for founding GNU-Darwin was to help people
to put Microsoft behind them,  and it is definitely possible to do it
now.  You have many resources at your disposal to help you leave
Microsoft behind.  Look at the link below to see what you can do
with free software.  Apple, GNU-Darwin, GNU.org, and GNU/Linux will
all help, and we are largely all helping together, because we have a
shared foundation of free software.

http://www.gnu-darwin.org/gdc/

Microsoft is only one example.  That is why we are so insistent that
Apple keep true to free and open source software principles.  We
should ultimately try to leave all proprietary software behind us, so
that we can participate fully in the freedom and openness of the
internet culture and public domain.  What more do we need, when we
have such a rich store of information and so many capable people at
our sides?

Finally, as a scientist, it is obvious to me that this situation is
relevant current and ongoing discussion in the scientific community,
and as such, it is also clear that many members of the various lists
would be interested in the current state of Darwin with respect to
FOSS and with respect to science.  

Here is the crucial point.

The principles of FOSS and scientific inquiry converge.  In
practical terms, how else can you know is what happening in your
experiments?  Free and open source software, open standards, best
promote the scientific endeavor by mirroring its method, but also
they assure that the work is accessible to the public.

Freedom and openness are crucial to understanding, and foundational
to the scientific endeavor, and they should not be compromised. 
There are a few examples of exceptions, but clearly, this matter
will find further debate in the appropriate forums.  We should not
quell debate because a few people are offended or complaining.  
From a scientific perspective that would be incorrect.

On that last point, I would suggest that Apple get on the right side
of the debate, and they will make tremendous headway.  Now is the
time.

Some people will find this message annoying and divisive, and the
delete button is ready at hand for them, but other people will find 
it interesting and engaging.  All as you like.  Let us not quell
discussion because a few people are annoyed.

Some will call this a troll, but I hope that folks will see through
such name-calling.  Trolls are mythological creatures, so don't
believe in them.  Everyone has a right to have their opinion
heard, even if those opinions are divisive or unpopular.  It is
clear that the idea of trolls is being used to attack freedom of
expression.  In fact, freedom of expression demands that we
listen to the so-called-trolls sometimes, and if you are civil, it
helps, so don't resort to name-calling. 

On cross-posting; when there are matters of urgent importance that
affect a broad range of subscriber lists, courtesy must sometimes
take a back seat, and cross-posting is an example of that. 
Cross-posting is to be encouraged when the subject of the post is on
topic.  Each of the various lists will respond in the way that seems
appropriate to the people in that forum, and the threads on the
various lists will diverge accordingly.  As the threads diverge, the
cross-posting addresses should be removed as needed.  Relevance to
all people is an unattainable goal, but messages of the broadest
applicability should have the broadest reach, and discussion should
not be stymied because some find it irrelevant.  I have given this
method due consideration; it is not trolling, not spam, not off-topic,
and cross-posting is an example of something that is sometimes
required according to the felt importance and relevance of a given
subject matter.  

In summary, Freedom and openness are now the bedrock of our
civilization and public welfare depends on these values, so that we 
should actively engage ourselves in preserving and making them happen.
In keeping with these principles it is crucial to note that there are
exceptions to etiquette, otherwise free expression will be overly
channeled, damped, and ultimately suppressed in our forums.  This
notion of courtesy will certainly receive additional consideration,
but meanwhile, let us together get to work on the activism now.  

Duly, I am amenable to valid criticism and able to respond, but please
reply with kindness.  Obviously, feel free to write back, copy, or
send these comments along to anyone else as you see fit.

Regards,
Michael L. Love Ph.D
Department of Biophysics and Biophysical Chemistry
School of Medicine
Johns Hopkins University
725 N. Wolfe Street
Room 608B WBSB
Baltimore MD 21205-2185

Interoffice Mail: 608B WBSB, SoM

office: 410-614-2267
lab:    410-614-3179
fax:    410-502-6910
cell:   443-824-3451
http://www.gnu-darwin.org/
riad 1 adil | 2 Jul 2006 19:45
Picon
Favicon

(no subject)

je suis desole ,je suis francai je comprend pas la langue anglas

_________________________________________________________________
Trangt om plassen? http://www.hotmail.com MSN Hotmail gir deg 250MB gratis 
lagringsplass
Ramon Roca | 2 Jul 2006 19:14

Re: the cooperative way for India?


In the line on the discussion. I can share many of thoughts dropped here.

The Catalonia example:
The regional government has done a few of those PoC, "successful but 
closed", but at the announcement time with lots of media coverage/hyped 
expectations.
Now seems that something learned, at least the half: They don't do hype 
any more, at least with less volume, but no clear that they really 
learned the other half and want to change to a more co-operative 
approach with other actors. Currently there are only plans for re-edit 
in the same way, just expecting that by having better SLA's and with the 
help of improved technology that will solve the problems. And note that 
happens in a context where there are a strong community-based groups 
which success stories of relationships with local companies and local 
governments and municipalities.

Personally I hate some comparatives, specially when they are about 
diferent things, but let me do an exception to illustrate what happened 
in the last 2/3 years at Catalonia:

Projecte BAR sponsored by the Regional Government:

    * Planed investments at the beginning of about 10 million €. Now
      extended to 10 million more, totalizing 20 million euros.
    * Method: Public bid open to private companies. Government retains
      infrastructure ownership, but gives it away to the selected
      company for a certain number of years.
    * The selected companies works as a regular ISP (no network neutrality).
    * Achieved about 500 connected homes. Almost all of them in rural
      but aggregated population areas.
    * Source:
      http://www.localret.es/jornades/materials/czr/presentacio.pdf
      (their own presentation given at the end of May 2006).

guifi.net:

    * Investments done by the community participants, difficult to
      calculate, but not more than 200K €
          o Individuals
          o Local companies seeking for self-services over the network
          o Local governments, municipalities
    * Method: Co-operative, Wireless Commons style network, no single
      ownership.
    * Achieved about 800 hundred users, both in small to mid-size urban
      areas and rural areas, including dispersed farms. To emphasize at
      the region of Osona, were a single all wifi network covers about
      400 to 600 square kilometers, which is about several times the
      size of the city of Barcelona (you can see it on the maps here):
      http://maps.guifi.net/world.phtml?REGION_ID=2444)
    * Network is neutral. Internet is picked at the regular ISP where
      DSL is available and spreaded over the wifi network both by public
      municipalities or individuals.
    * Source: guifi.net, http://guifi.net/ca/catalunya

Is not in my aim to criticize public initiatives or government 
actuations. Like someone said, nothing is black and white. But yes to 
underline that co-operative approaches with all the actors can guarantee 
better results, and sometimes the idea of acting unilateral just 
increases the chances of failure. That's my IMHO conclusion.

Cheers,
Ramon.

En/na vvcrishna <at> radiophony.com ha escrit:
> At a recent meeting on community radio (almost anyone would agree, the first
> step towards building an engaged rural populace, but not India, which still
> slavishly hews to colonial lines established in and for another time and yes,
> another place), I was told that we have the proud record of 30,000
> internationally funded projects - all closed despite some successful 'proofs of
> concept'.
>
> I don't understand Balaji's question: 'why should the government bear the onus
> for everything?'. I don't think that's anyone's case in black and white, but
> surely the government needs to learn to step aside in areas (such as basic
> communication) where it has failed to provide a service despite enjoying a
> mandated monopoly for decades, and now seeks to treat the medium itself as a
> revenue generator, ignoring its potential for positive growth?
>
> Quoting john wilson <johnresearch <at> hotmail.com>:
>
>   
>> Balaji and all,
>>
>> Yes you highlight key points - re. government rhetoric and statements of 
>> good intent, and  opportunist projects designed to benefit from government 
>> funding. Whilst little is actually happening on the ground. Such political 
>> game-plays have a habit of leaving "people" out.
>>
>> Some remarks. At the risk of repeating myself.
>>
>> Communities in real need can end up being doubly exploited. Government and 
>> public bodies tend to build-up expectations for matters of political 
>> expediency. Then pilot projects that attract funding can often fail due to 
>> ill-conceived social formulations or else opportunist motives. The pendulum 
>> can tend to swing from hyped-up expectations to declarations of failure. 
>> Meanwhile both government and incumbent telco have bought time, and market 
>> activity evolves so that the window of opportunity for local, "first-mile" 
>> community network projects is changed.
>>
>> At our Djusrsland convention 2 years we explored issues of strategy in a 
>> session "The Community First Mile: Strategies for Broadband Access", 
>> foregrounding the "social" as opposed to the "technology" aspect of 
>> community projects.
>>
>> The convention also highlighted the way in which the Djurslands.net had 
>> broken from the culture of dependancy on government and realized a 
>> significant scale of growth through its own "self-help", "co-operative" 
>> approach (in a rural region with strong residual traditions of 
>> agricultural/fisherman's co-operativism). - I have not seen an update since 
>> then, to see how the Djurslands.net project may have developed in the 
>> evolving telecoms environment, and to what extent it may have managed to 
>> maintain a democratic community management and  economic sustainability. Has
>>
>> an updated case study of the Djursland project been produced recently? 
>> Lessons of strategy and "politics"?
>>
>> The Djursland convention also highlighted Onno Purbo's community wireless 
>> networking activities in Indonesia, regarding a grassroots initiative 
>> independent of government support/dependancy. Subsequently Onno presented to
>>
>> an Open Spectrum UK event in London, see blog notes of his presentation here
>>
>> < http://openspectrum.org.uk/wiki/wikka.php?wakka=EventOSUK01blog >. The 
>> relevance of Onno's "rural Indonesia" activities to "the rural India 
>> situation"?
>>
>> The convention also held a workshop titled "A project that failed", where 
>> Dave Hughes explored his wireless project activities in Wales re issues of 
>> government funding, project development, community needs, etc.
>>
>> In my last posting to this list I recommended that attention be given to 
>> strategies for community project development, with focussed attention to the
>>
>> "social" as much as the "technology" aspect of the challenge. Its a real 
>> challenge. Its political. Otherwise history can be relied upon to repeat 
>> itself. Well-intentioned projects bite the dust. And make no mistake, your 
>> protagonists *are* applying their minds to putting you out of business.
>>
>> Since the Djursland Institute has recieved its funding, I wonder whether it 
>> has given attention to a White Paper on project design and strategy re 
>> community-based assets development? Likewise any other funded advocacy 
>> bodies that have some relationship to the "wsfii" communities of interest, 
>> for example the OPLAN Foundation which was set up after the Djursland 
>> convention (with World Bank funding)?
>>
>> Where's the politics?
>>
>> John
>>
>>
>>     
>>> From: Balaji G <balaji_g1947 <at> yahoo.com>
>>> Reply-To: Discuss list on the World Summit on Free Information 
>>> Infrastructure<wsfii-discuss <at> lists.okfn.org>
>>> To: wsfii-discuss <at> lists.okfn.org
>>> Subject: Re: [wsfii-discuss] the cooperative way for India?
>>> Date: Sat, 1 Jul 2006 04:08:49 -0700 (PDT)
>>>
>>>
>>> Dear Arun
>>>
>>> The article attached by you below has some pointers to the real issue.
>>>
>>> On rural connectivity situation in India, the only thing happening is the
>>> Government inititaive on CSC.  Most others, including large corporates and
>>> NGOs, stop at announcements and events or research papers,  and do not even
>>> have intention to do something substantive.
>>>
>>> Even the intention to participate in several PPP (Public Private
>>> partnesrhip) programmes is for them to benefit from Government largesse
>>> only. So, who is interested in furtherance of cause of rural?
>>>
>>> The issue, that comes to mind  is,  why should the onus be always on the
>>> government for evertything?
>>>
>>> Balaji
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Arun Mehta wrote:
>>>       
>>>> Leading up to the World Summit on Free Information Infrastructures,
>>>> wsfii.org, in Dharamsala, international participants may be interested
>>>> in understanding the rural connectivity situation in India.
>>>>
>>>> The article below is right, when it says that mostly so far, all we
>>>> have had is pilot projects, and lots of conferences. The government is
>>>> indeed trying to set up 100,000 telecenters, but so far, two years
>>>> after Mission 2007 was launched, there is little evidence of anything
>>>> on the ground. At the London wsfii, I predicted, hoping to be proved
>>>> wrong, that not much would have been achieved by the government bythe
>>>> time of the 2006 wsfii. Actually, a lot less has been achieved, than I
>>>> expected.
>>>>
>>>> As regards viability, why do we forget Metcalfe's law: the value of a
>>>> network is proportional to the square of its size? In other words,
>>>> viability will improve dramatically if we network all 600,000 instead
>>>> of just one-sixth: if 6 villages share a telecenter, a lot of the
>>>> business will be lost: all the communications between the 6! People
>>>> surely communicate with neighboring villages a lot more than they do
>>>> with people far away. The old and the disabled will not be able to use
>>>> a telecenter, unless it is in their own village.
>>>>
>>>> The Dharamsala WSFII could not be happening at a more opportune time,
>>>> to point out another way. No longer do we need large telcos to
>>>> condescend to provide connectivity to villages. People can do it
>>>> themselves, as the airjaldi network in Dharamsala and others around
>>>> the world so ably demonstrate.
>>>> Arun
>>>>
>>>> http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1648695.cms
>>>> Rural connect: The cooperative way
>>>> MOHAN MISHRA
>>>>
>>>> On the face of it, the growing Naxalite menace may be treated as a law
>>>> and order problem. But the root cause of the issue, as articulated by
>>>> Dr MS Swaminathan, the father of Green Revolution, is: "Ignore
>>>> farmers, see Red spread". Naxalism, along with farmers' suicides, are
>>>> only the visible symptoms of a deeper disease: the worsening plight of
>>>> agriculture dependent population and widening urban-rural disparities.
>>>>
>>>> To see how stark these disparities are, just take a look at the
>>>> teledensity figures. Despite the euphoria over recent telecom growth,
>>>> rural teledensity remains a measly 2% compared to 31% in urban areas.
>>>> The teledensity growth in the country has been led by higher urban
>>>> volumes while large parts of rural India still remain unconnected.
>>>>
>>>> Rural development is an urgent need and towards that goal, connect-ing
>>>> the villages is the first step. There has also been a growing interest
>>>> from all quarters including numerous corporates, in solving the
>>>> problems of rural India using Information and Communication Technology
>>>> (ICT). While there have been a slew of initiatives and announcements,
>>>> substantive results have been far and few.
>>>>
>>>> One reason is that many tend to treat the matter as primarily a
>>>> technology issue. The solutions offered would, therefore, have been
>>>> around innovation at the product level and range from the earlier
>>>> Simputers to the recent $100 laptop.
>>>>
>>>> These are only some options to the challenge of connecting villages.
>>>> Very few have attempted to put together an integrated solution to
>>>> overcome the challenge of connecting rural India. Second,
>>>> sustainability remains a major stumbling block in the game of rolling
>>>> out rural kiosks.
>>>>
>>>> No one has still found a satisfactory answer to the issue. Says Dr MS
>>>> Swaminathan, whose MSSRF village kiosks are an industry forerunner:
>>>> "Economic sustainability may not happen in immediate terms, but it is
>>>> more a question of social sustainability."
>>>>
>>>> Pankaj Baveja, founder of Project Param, and a pioneer in rural
>>>> computing, endorses these views, but adds: "That does not mean that
>>>> solutions to sustainability are not possible. Issues are not so much
>>>> to do with choices in technology and connectivity.
>>>>
>>>> It is more to do with ownership-operations model and with the nuances
>>>> in implementation." Third, with the trend of showcasing, only
>>>> conferences and seminars have been proliferating while there hasn't
>>>> been substantive work on field.
>>>>
>>>>  For substantive achievements in connecting rural India, a way forward
>>>> may be the cooperative way. A shining example of marriage of
>>>> technology with cooperative linkages for real grassroots
>>>> transformation is Amul.
>>>>
>>>> Its manufacturing facilities are a point of envy for even the western
>>>> world, and so are its IT-enabled logistics. In the words of the Amul
>>>> CEO BM Vyas: "Amul is not a food company. It is an IT company in the
>>>> food business". That is true rural empowerment using ICT.
>>>>
>>>> Cooperatives have been deeply entwined with the lives of rural people,
>>>> fostering economic activity with linkages extending right up to the
>>>> grassroots level. They have been playing an important role in rural
>>>> development.
>>>>
>>>> Not many may be aware that in the country there are over 5 lakh
>>>> cooperative societies with membership exceeding 22 crore. But more
>>>> important, the principles of equity along with economic growth are
>>>> embodied in the basic co-operative structures, and hence the
>>>> co-operative way is the natural way for rural development -- and for
>>>> reducing disparities.
>>>>
>>>> Recognising the need for rural development, the government is doing
>>>> its bit by launching a bold initiative of setting up 100,000 Common
>>>> Service Centres by 2007. Pankaj Baveja, says: "The needs in the
>>>> vil-lages are so high that this programme is bound to deliver positive
>>>> re-sults. So, progress it must in its implementation."
>>>>
>>>> The task of rural development requires a concerted cooperative effort
>>>> and participation from all quarters. Along with the government and the
>>>> co-operative sector, private industry needs to come forward to
>>>> contribute substantively towards rural transformation, taking things
>>>> beyond limited CSR activities.
>>>>
>>>> The visionaries and captains in the industry need to look at rural
>>>> India -- not as mere markets -- but as investments. And this they need
>>>> to do in their enlightened self interest. That may just be the key to
>>>> sustain-able rural transformation.
>>>>
>>>>         
Balaji G | 5 Jul 2006 23:48
Picon
Favicon

Re: the cooperative way for India?


Dear Vickram

Just to respond to your query on what I meant.

I am not standing in defence of the Government for their efficiencies or
inefficiencies. 
We all know that rural India is in a complete mess. Yet, if at all 
something has progressed there, it has happened only through the government.
Even in case of telecom, all rural teledensity increase  has taken place
because of public sector undertaking BSNL. Private telecom operators happily
chose to pay penalties as against connecting in rural. On the other hand,
Ngos and community based efforts have remained marginal.

So the onus for doing good falls only on Government. And you yourself have
said that Government has failed to do much. The article by Mohan Mishra says
things on similar lines too. Every one talks, but looks to only Government
to do something, and nothing much happens. So the fault also lies as much in
all other constituents, who only talk and eventually leave it to Government
to do the dirty (the noble) job.   

So, where is the hope? Is anyone interested ? If others are not, and
Government is also not, where is the...... hope?

Of course, Mr Mishra in his article has reasons to be more optimistic than
me, as he calls for genuine action.

Balaji

Vickram Crishna-2 wrote:
> 
> At a recent meeting on community radio (almost anyone would agree, the
> first
> step towards building an engaged rural populace, but not India, which
> still
> slavishly hews to colonial lines established in and for another time and
> yes,
> another place), I was told that we have the proud record of 30,000
> internationally funded projects - all closed despite some successful
> 'proofs of
> concept'.
> 
> I don't understand Balaji's question: 'why should the government bear the
> onus
> for everything?'. I don't think that's anyone's case in black and white,
> but
> surely the government needs to learn to step aside in areas (such as basic
> communication) where it has failed to provide a service despite enjoying a
> mandated monopoly for decades, and now seeks to treat the medium itself as
> a
> revenue generator, ignoring its potential for positive growth?
> 
> Quoting john wilson <johnresearch <at> hotmail.com>:
> 
>> Balaji and all,
>> 
>> Yes you highlight key points - re. government rhetoric and statements of 
>> good intent, and  opportunist projects designed to benefit from
>> government 
>> funding. Whilst little is actually happening on the ground. Such
>> political 
>> game-plays have a habit of leaving "people" out.
>> 
>> Some remarks. At the risk of repeating myself.
>> 
>> Communities in real need can end up being doubly exploited. Government
>> and 
>> public bodies tend to build-up expectations for matters of political 
>> expediency. Then pilot projects that attract funding can often fail due
>> to 
>> ill-conceived social formulations or else opportunist motives. The
>> pendulum 
>> can tend to swing from hyped-up expectations to declarations of failure. 
>> Meanwhile both government and incumbent telco have bought time, and
>> market 
>> activity evolves so that the window of opportunity for local,
>> "first-mile" 
>> community network projects is changed.
>> 
>> At our Djusrsland convention 2 years we explored issues of strategy in a 
>> session "The Community First Mile: Strategies for Broadband Access", 
>> foregrounding the "social" as opposed to the "technology" aspect of 
>> community projects.
>> 
>> The convention also highlighted the way in which the Djurslands.net had 
>> broken from the culture of dependancy on government and realized a 
>> significant scale of growth through its own "self-help", "co-operative" 
>> approach (in a rural region with strong residual traditions of 
>> agricultural/fisherman's co-operativism). - I have not seen an update
>> since 
>> then, to see how the Djurslands.net project may have developed in the 
>> evolving telecoms environment, and to what extent it may have managed to 
>> maintain a democratic community management and  economic sustainability.
>> Has
>> 
>> an updated case study of the Djursland project been produced recently? 
>> Lessons of strategy and "politics"?
>> 
>> The Djursland convention also highlighted Onno Purbo's community wireless 
>> networking activities in Indonesia, regarding a grassroots initiative 
>> independent of government support/dependancy. Subsequently Onno presented
>> to
>> 
>> an Open Spectrum UK event in London, see blog notes of his presentation
>> here
>> 
>> < http://openspectrum.org.uk/wiki/wikka.php?wakka=EventOSUK01blog >. The 
>> relevance of Onno's "rural Indonesia" activities to "the rural India 
>> situation"?
>> 
>> The convention also held a workshop titled "A project that failed", where 
>> Dave Hughes explored his wireless project activities in Wales re issues
>> of 
>> government funding, project development, community needs, etc.
>> 
>> In my last posting to this list I recommended that attention be given to 
>> strategies for community project development, with focussed attention to
>> the
>> 
>> "social" as much as the "technology" aspect of the challenge. Its a real 
>> challenge. Its political. Otherwise history can be relied upon to repeat 
>> itself. Well-intentioned projects bite the dust. And make no mistake,
>> your 
>> protagonists *are* applying their minds to putting you out of business.
>> 
>> Since the Djursland Institute has recieved its funding, I wonder whether
>> it 
>> has given attention to a White Paper on project design and strategy re 
>> community-based assets development? Likewise any other funded advocacy 
>> bodies that have some relationship to the "wsfii" communities of
>> interest, 
>> for example the OPLAN Foundation which was set up after the Djursland 
>> convention (with World Bank funding)?
>> 
>> Where's the politics?
>> 
>> John
>> 
>> 
>> >From: Balaji G <balaji_g1947 <at> yahoo.com>
>> >Reply-To: Discuss list on the World Summit on Free Information 
>> >Infrastructure<wsfii-discuss <at> lists.okfn.org>
>> >To: wsfii-discuss <at> lists.okfn.org
>> >Subject: Re: [wsfii-discuss] the cooperative way for India?
>> >Date: Sat, 1 Jul 2006 04:08:49 -0700 (PDT)
>> >
>> >
>> >Dear Arun
>> >
>> >The article attached by you below has some pointers to the real issue.
>> >
>> >On rural connectivity situation in India, the only thing happening is
>> the
>> >Government inititaive on CSC.  Most others, including large corporates
>> and
>> >NGOs, stop at announcements and events or research papers,  and do not
>> even
>> >have intention to do something substantive.
>> >
>> >Even the intention to participate in several PPP (Public Private
>> >partnesrhip) programmes is for them to benefit from Government largesse
>> >only. So, who is interested in furtherance of cause of rural?
>> >
>> >The issue, that comes to mind  is,  why should the onus be always on the
>> >government for evertything?
>> >
>> >Balaji
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >Arun Mehta wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Leading up to the World Summit on Free Information Infrastructures,
>> > > wsfii.org, in Dharamsala, international participants may be
>> interested
>> > > in understanding the rural connectivity situation in India.
>> > >
>> > > The article below is right, when it says that mostly so far, all we
>> > > have had is pilot projects, and lots of conferences. The government
>> is
>> > > indeed trying to set up 100,000 telecenters, but so far, two years
>> > > after Mission 2007 was launched, there is little evidence of anything
>> > > on the ground. At the London wsfii, I predicted, hoping to be proved
>> > > wrong, that not much would have been achieved by the government bythe
>> > > time of the 2006 wsfii. Actually, a lot less has been achieved, than
>> I
>> > > expected.
>> > >
>> > > As regards viability, why do we forget Metcalfe's law: the value of a
>> > > network is proportional to the square of its size? In other words,
>> > > viability will improve dramatically if we network all 600,000 instead
>> > > of just one-sixth: if 6 villages share a telecenter, a lot of the
>> > > business will be lost: all the communications between the 6! People
>> > > surely communicate with neighboring villages a lot more than they do
>> > > with people far away. The old and the disabled will not be able to
>> use
>> > > a telecenter, unless it is in their own village.
>> > >
>> > > The Dharamsala WSFII could not be happening at a more opportune time,
>> > > to point out another way. No longer do we need large telcos to
>> > > condescend to provide connectivity to villages. People can do it
>> > > themselves, as the airjaldi network in Dharamsala and others around
>> > > the world so ably demonstrate.
>> > > Arun
>> > >
>> > > http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1648695.cms
>> > > Rural connect: The cooperative way
>> > > MOHAN MISHRA
>> > >
>> > > On the face of it, the growing Naxalite menace may be treated as a
>> law
>> > > and order problem. But the root cause of the issue, as articulated by
>> > > Dr MS Swaminathan, the father of Green Revolution, is: "Ignore
>> > > farmers, see Red spread". Naxalism, along with farmers' suicides, are
>> > > only the visible symptoms of a deeper disease: the worsening plight
>> of
>> > > agriculture dependent population and widening urban-rural
>> disparities.
>> > >
>> > > To see how stark these disparities are, just take a look at the
>> > > teledensity figures. Despite the euphoria over recent telecom growth,
>> > > rural teledensity remains a measly 2% compared to 31% in urban areas.
>> > > The teledensity growth in the country has been led by higher urban
>> > > volumes while large parts of rural India still remain unconnected.
>> > >
>> > > Rural development is an urgent need and towards that goal,
>> connect-ing
>> > > the villages is the first step. There has also been a growing
>> interest
>> > > from all quarters including numerous corporates, in solving the
>> > > problems of rural India using Information and Communication
>> Technology
>> > > (ICT). While there have been a slew of initiatives and announcements,
>> > > substantive results have been far and few.
>> > >
>> > > One reason is that many tend to treat the matter as primarily a
>> > > technology issue. The solutions offered would, therefore, have been
>> > > around innovation at the product level and range from the earlier
>> > > Simputers to the recent $100 laptop.
>> > >
>> > > These are only some options to the challenge of connecting villages.
>> > > Very few have attempted to put together an integrated solution to
>> > > overcome the challenge of connecting rural India. Second,
>> > > sustainability remains a major stumbling block in the game of rolling
>> > > out rural kiosks.
>> > >
>> > > No one has still found a satisfactory answer to the issue. Says Dr MS
>> > > Swaminathan, whose MSSRF village kiosks are an industry forerunner:
>> > > "Economic sustainability may not happen in immediate terms, but it is
>> > > more a question of social sustainability."
>> > >
>> > > Pankaj Baveja, founder of Project Param, and a pioneer in rural
>> > > computing, endorses these views, but adds: "That does not mean that
>> > > solutions to sustainability are not possible. Issues are not so much
>> > > to do with choices in technology and connectivity.
>> > >
>> > > It is more to do with ownership-operations model and with the nuances
>> > > in implementation." Third, with the trend of showcasing, only
>> > > conferences and seminars have been proliferating while there hasn't
>> > > been substantive work on field.
>> > >
>> > >  For substantive achievements in connecting rural India, a way
>> forward
>> > > may be the cooperative way. A shining example of marriage of
>> > > technology with cooperative linkages for real grassroots
>> > > transformation is Amul.
>> > >
>> > > Its manufacturing facilities are a point of envy for even the western
>> > > world, and so are its IT-enabled logistics. In the words of the Amul
>> > > CEO BM Vyas: "Amul is not a food company. It is an IT company in the
>> > > food business". That is true rural empowerment using ICT.
>> > >
>> > > Cooperatives have been deeply entwined with the lives of rural
>> people,
>> > > fostering economic activity with linkages extending right up to the
>> > > grassroots level. They have been playing an important role in rural
>> > > development.
>> > >
>> > > Not many may be aware that in the country there are over 5 lakh
>> > > cooperative societies with membership exceeding 22 crore. But more
>> > > important, the principles of equity along with economic growth are
>> > > embodied in the basic co-operative structures, and hence the
>> > > co-operative way is the natural way for rural development -- and for
>> > > reducing disparities.
>> > >
>> > > Recognising the need for rural development, the government is doing
>> > > its bit by launching a bold initiative of setting up 100,000 Common
>> > > Service Centres by 2007. Pankaj Baveja, says: "The needs in the
>> > > vil-lages are so high that this programme is bound to deliver
>> positive
>> > > re-sults. So, progress it must in its implementation."
>> > >
>> > > The task of rural development requires a concerted cooperative effort
>> > > and participation from all quarters. Along with the government and
>> the
>> > > co-operative sector, private industry needs to come forward to
>> > > contribute substantively towards rural transformation, taking things
>> > > beyond limited CSR activities.
>> > >
>> > > The visionaries and captains in the industry need to look at rural
>> > > India -- not as mere markets -- but as investments. And this they
>> need
>> > > to do in their enlightened self interest. That may just be the key to
>> > > sustain-able rural transformation.
>> > >
>> > > _______________________________________________
>> > > wsfii-discuss mailing list
>> > > wsfii-discuss <at> lists.okfn.org
>> > > http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/wsfii-discuss
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> 
>> 
>> >_______________________________________________
>> >wsfii-discuss mailing list
>> >wsfii-discuss <at> lists.okfn.org
>> >http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/wsfii-discuss
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> wsfii-discuss mailing list
>> wsfii-discuss <at> lists.okfn.org
>> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/wsfii-discuss
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> wsfii-discuss mailing list
> wsfii-discuss <at> lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/wsfii-discuss
> 
> 

--

-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/the-cooperative-way-for-India--tf1831710.html#a5190242
Sent from the wsfii-discuss forum at Nabble.com.
vvcrishna | 6 Jul 2006 07:38
Gravatar

Re: the cooperative way for India?

Quoting Balaji G <balaji_g1947 <at> yahoo.com>:

> I am not standing in defence of the Government for their efficiencies or
> inefficiencies. 
> We all know that rural India is in a complete mess. Yet, if at all 
> something has progressed there, it has happened only through the government.
> Even in case of telecom, all rural teledensity increase  has taken place
> because of public sector undertaking BSNL. Private telecom operators happily
> chose to pay penalties as against connecting in rural. On the other hand,
> Ngos and community based efforts have remained marginal.

The ills of NGOs are reasonably well known - they are as subject to influence
through the need for sustainability as anyone else driven by profit. As for the
private telecom operators, the intransigence or lack of interest in deploying
the USO prior to this year is surely condemnable. It was not a tax - it was a
penalty for not deploying networks in rural areas, and no wonder that BSNL was
the only entity that provided service in the absence of any profit-oriented
motivation (the only thing that business respond to). The lack of design of a
mechanism to spend the money is at fault.

However, the government is also to blame for continuing with a regulatory policy
on braodcasting and interconnectivity that is designed to fail, and disempower
people from building their own solutions (with our without the 'aid' of
government or business).

> 
> So the onus for doing good falls only on Government. And you yourself have
> said that Government has failed to do much. The article by Mohan Mishra says
> things on similar lines too. Every one talks, but looks to only Government
> to do something, and nothing much happens. So the fault also lies as much in
> all other constituents, who only talk and eventually leave it to Government
> to do the dirty (the noble) job.   
> 
> So, where is the hope? Is anyone interested ? If others are not, and
> Government is also not, where is the...... hope?

I don't know for sure that 'NGOs' or 'self-help groups' or whatever label is put
on groups that move collectively towards helping themselves will definitely
succeed where other processes have failed. 

Possibly, the change in attitude of the government will in itself be the
greatest motivator. Is that a decent enough hope?

> 
> Of course, Mr Mishra in his article has reasons to be more optimistic than
> me, as he calls for genuine action.
> 
> Balaji
> 
> 
> 
> Vickram Crishna-2 wrote:
> > 
> > At a recent meeting on community radio (almost anyone would agree, the
> > first
> > step towards building an engaged rural populace, but not India, which
> > still
> > slavishly hews to colonial lines established in and for another time and
> > yes,
> > another place), I was told that we have the proud record of 30,000
> > internationally funded projects - all closed despite some successful
> > 'proofs of
> > concept'.
> > 
> > I don't understand Balaji's question: 'why should the government bear the
> > onus
> > for everything?'. I don't think that's anyone's case in black and white,
> > but
> > surely the government needs to learn to step aside in areas (such as basic
> > communication) where it has failed to provide a service despite enjoying a
> > mandated monopoly for decades, and now seeks to treat the medium itself as
> > a
> > revenue generator, ignoring its potential for positive growth?
> > 
> > Quoting john wilson <johnresearch <at> hotmail.com>:
> > 
> >> Balaji and all,
> >> 
> >> Yes you highlight key points - re. government rhetoric and statements of 
> >> good intent, and  opportunist projects designed to benefit from
> >> government 
> >> funding. Whilst little is actually happening on the ground. Such
> >> political 
> >> game-plays have a habit of leaving "people" out.
> >> 
> >> Some remarks. At the risk of repeating myself.
> >> 
> >> Communities in real need can end up being doubly exploited. Government
> >> and 
> >> public bodies tend to build-up expectations for matters of political 
> >> expediency. Then pilot projects that attract funding can often fail due
> >> to 
> >> ill-conceived social formulations or else opportunist motives. The
> >> pendulum 
> >> can tend to swing from hyped-up expectations to declarations of failure. 
> >> Meanwhile both government and incumbent telco have bought time, and
> >> market 
> >> activity evolves so that the window of opportunity for local,
> >> "first-mile" 
> >> community network projects is changed.
> >> 
> >> At our Djusrsland convention 2 years we explored issues of strategy in a 
> >> session "The Community First Mile: Strategies for Broadband Access", 
> >> foregrounding the "social" as opposed to the "technology" aspect of 
> >> community projects.
> >> 
> >> The convention also highlighted the way in which the Djurslands.net had 
> >> broken from the culture of dependancy on government and realized a 
> >> significant scale of growth through its own "self-help", "co-operative" 
> >> approach (in a rural region with strong residual traditions of 
> >> agricultural/fisherman's co-operativism). - I have not seen an update
> >> since 
> >> then, to see how the Djurslands.net project may have developed in the 
> >> evolving telecoms environment, and to what extent it may have managed to 
> >> maintain a democratic community management and  economic sustainability.
> >> Has
> >> 
> >> an updated case study of the Djursland project been produced recently? 
> >> Lessons of strategy and "politics"?
> >> 
> >> The Djursland convention also highlighted Onno Purbo's community wireless
> 
> >> networking activities in Indonesia, regarding a grassroots initiative 
> >> independent of government support/dependancy. Subsequently Onno presented
> >> to
> >> 
> >> an Open Spectrum UK event in London, see blog notes of his presentation
> >> here
> >> 
> >> < http://openspectrum.org.uk/wiki/wikka.php?wakka=EventOSUK01blog >. The 
> >> relevance of Onno's "rural Indonesia" activities to "the rural India 
> >> situation"?
> >> 
> >> The convention also held a workshop titled "A project that failed", where
> 
> >> Dave Hughes explored his wireless project activities in Wales re issues
> >> of 
> >> government funding, project development, community needs, etc.
> >> 
> >> In my last posting to this list I recommended that attention be given to 
> >> strategies for community project development, with focussed attention to
> >> the
> >> 
> >> "social" as much as the "technology" aspect of the challenge. Its a real 
> >> challenge. Its political. Otherwise history can be relied upon to repeat 
> >> itself. Well-intentioned projects bite the dust. And make no mistake,
> >> your 
> >> protagonists *are* applying their minds to putting you out of business.
> >> 
> >> Since the Djursland Institute has recieved its funding, I wonder whether
> >> it 
> >> has given attention to a White Paper on project design and strategy re 
> >> community-based assets development? Likewise any other funded advocacy 
> >> bodies that have some relationship to the "wsfii" communities of
> >> interest, 
> >> for example the OPLAN Foundation which was set up after the Djursland 
> >> convention (with World Bank funding)?
> >> 
> >> Where's the politics?
> >> 
> >> John
> >> 
> >> 
> >> >From: Balaji G <balaji_g1947 <at> yahoo.com>
> >> >Reply-To: Discuss list on the World Summit on Free Information 
> >> >Infrastructure<wsfii-discuss <at> lists.okfn.org>
> >> >To: wsfii-discuss <at> lists.okfn.org
> >> >Subject: Re: [wsfii-discuss] the cooperative way for India?
> >> >Date: Sat, 1 Jul 2006 04:08:49 -0700 (PDT)
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Dear Arun
> >> >
> >> >The article attached by you below has some pointers to the real issue.
> >> >
> >> >On rural connectivity situation in India, the only thing happening is
> >> the
> >> >Government inititaive on CSC.  Most others, including large corporates
> >> and
> >> >NGOs, stop at announcements and events or research papers,  and do not
> >> even
> >> >have intention to do something substantive.
> >> >
> >> >Even the intention to participate in several PPP (Public Private
> >> >partnesrhip) programmes is for them to benefit from Government largesse
> >> >only. So, who is interested in furtherance of cause of rural?
> >> >
> >> >The issue, that comes to mind  is,  why should the onus be always on the
> >> >government for evertything?
> >> >
> >> >Balaji
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Arun Mehta wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > Leading up to the World Summit on Free Information Infrastructures,
> >> > > wsfii.org, in Dharamsala, international participants may be
> >> interested
> >> > > in understanding the rural connectivity situation in India.
> >> > >
> >> > > The article below is right, when it says that mostly so far, all we
> >> > > have had is pilot projects, and lots of conferences. The government
> >> is
> >> > > indeed trying to set up 100,000 telecenters, but so far, two years
> >> > > after Mission 2007 was launched, there is little evidence of anything
> >> > > on the ground. At the London wsfii, I predicted, hoping to be proved
> >> > > wrong, that not much would have been achieved by the government bythe
> >> > > time of the 2006 wsfii. Actually, a lot less has been achieved, than
> >> I
> >> > > expected.
> >> > >
> >> > > As regards viability, why do we forget Metcalfe's law: the value of a
> >> > > network is proportional to the square of its size? In other words,
> >> > > viability will improve dramatically if we network all 600,000 instead
> >> > > of just one-sixth: if 6 villages share a telecenter, a lot of the
> >> > > business will be lost: all the communications between the 6! People
> >> > > surely communicate with neighboring villages a lot more than they do
> >> > > with people far away. The old and the disabled will not be able to
> >> use
> >> > > a telecenter, unless it is in their own village.
> >> > >
> >> > > The Dharamsala WSFII could not be happening at a more opportune time,
> >> > > to point out another way. No longer do we need large telcos to
> >> > > condescend to provide connectivity to villages. People can do it
> >> > > themselves, as the airjaldi network in Dharamsala and others around
> >> > > the world so ably demonstrate.
> >> > > Arun
> >> > >
> >> > > http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1648695.cms
> >> > > Rural connect: The cooperative way
> >> > > MOHAN MISHRA
> >> > >
> >> > > On the face of it, the growing Naxalite menace may be treated as a
> >> law
> >> > > and order problem. But the root cause of the issue, as articulated by
> >> > > Dr MS Swaminathan, the father of Green Revolution, is: "Ignore
> >> > > farmers, see Red spread". Naxalism, along with farmers' suicides, are
> >> > > only the visible symptoms of a deeper disease: the worsening plight
> >> of
> >> > > agriculture dependent population and widening urban-rural
> >> disparities.
> >> > >
> >> > > To see how stark these disparities are, just take a look at the
> >> > > teledensity figures. Despite the euphoria over recent telecom growth,
> >> > > rural teledensity remains a measly 2% compared to 31% in urban areas.
> >> > > The teledensity growth in the country has been led by higher urban
> >> > > volumes while large parts of rural India still remain unconnected.
> >> > >
> >> > > Rural development is an urgent need and towards that goal,
> >> connect-ing
> >> > > the villages is the first step. There has also been a growing
> >> interest
> >> > > from all quarters including numerous corporates, in solving the
> >> > > problems of rural India using Information and Communication
> >> Technology
> >> > > (ICT). While there have been a slew of initiatives and announcements,
> >> > > substantive results have been far and few.
> >> > >
> >> > > One reason is that many tend to treat the matter as primarily a
> >> > > technology issue. The solutions offered would, therefore, have been
> >> > > around innovation at the product level and range from the earlier
> >> > > Simputers to the recent $100 laptop.
> >> > >
> >> > > These are only some options to the challenge of connecting villages.
> >> > > Very few have attempted to put together an integrated solution to
> >> > > overcome the challenge of connecting rural India. Second,
> >> > > sustainability remains a major stumbling block in the game of rolling
> >> > > out rural kiosks.
> >> > >
> >> > > No one has still found a satisfactory answer to the issue. Says Dr MS
> >> > > Swaminathan, whose MSSRF village kiosks are an industry forerunner:
> >> > > "Economic sustainability may not happen in immediate terms, but it is
> >> > > more a question of social sustainability."
> >> > >
> >> > > Pankaj Baveja, founder of Project Param, and a pioneer in rural
> >> > > computing, endorses these views, but adds: "That does not mean that
> >> > > solutions to sustainability are not possible. Issues are not so much
> >> > > to do with choices in technology and connectivity.
> >> > >
> >> > > It is more to do with ownership-operations model and with the nuances
> >> > > in implementation." Third, with the trend of showcasing, only
> >> > > conferences and seminars have been proliferating while there hasn't
> >> > > been substantive work on field.
> >> > >
> >> > >  For substantive achievements in connecting rural India, a way
> >> forward
> >> > > may be the cooperative way. A shining example of marriage of
> >> > > technology with cooperative linkages for real grassroots
> >> > > transformation is Amul.
> >> > >
> >> > > Its manufacturing facilities are a point of envy for even the western
> >> > > world, and so are its IT-enabled logistics. In the words of the Amul
> >> > > CEO BM Vyas: "Amul is not a food company. It is an IT company in the
> >> > > food business". That is true rural empowerment using ICT.
> >> > >
> >> > > Cooperatives have been deeply entwined with the lives of rural
> >> people,
> >> > > fostering economic activity with linkages extending right up to the
> >> > > grassroots level. They have been playing an important role in rural
> >> > > development.
> >> > >
> >> > > Not many may be aware that in the country there are over 5 lakh
> >> > > cooperative societies with membership exceeding 22 crore. But more
> >> > > important, the principles of equity along with economic growth are
> >> > > embodied in the basic co-operative structures, and hence the
> >> > > co-operative way is the natural way for rural development -- and for
> >> > > reducing disparities.
> >> > >
> >> > > Recognising the need for rural development, the government is doing
> >> > > its bit by launching a bold initiative of setting up 100,000 Common
> >> > > Service Centres by 2007. Pankaj Baveja, says: "The needs in the
> >> > > vil-lages are so high that this programme is bound to deliver
> >> positive
> >> > > re-sults. So, progress it must in its implementation."
> >> > >
> >> > > The task of rural development requires a concerted cooperative effort
> >> > > and participation from all quarters. Along with the government and
> >> the
> >> > > co-operative sector, private industry needs to come forward to
> >> > > contribute substantively towards rural transformation, taking things
> >> > > beyond limited CSR activities.
> >> > >
> >> > > The visionaries and captains in the industry need to look at rural
> >> > > India -- not as mere markets -- but as investments. And this they
> >> need
> >> > > to do in their enlightened self interest. That may just be the key to
> >> > > sustain-able rural transformation.
> >> > >
> >> > > _______________________________________________
> >> > > wsfii-discuss mailing list
> >> > > wsfii-discuss <at> lists.okfn.org
> >> > > http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/wsfii-discuss
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> 
> >> 
> >> >_______________________________________________
> >> >wsfii-discuss mailing list
> >> >wsfii-discuss <at> lists.okfn.org
> >> >http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/wsfii-discuss
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> wsfii-discuss mailing list
> >> wsfii-discuss <at> lists.okfn.org
> >> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/wsfii-discuss
> >> 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > wsfii-discuss mailing list
> > wsfii-discuss <at> lists.okfn.org
> > http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/wsfii-discuss
> > 
> > 
> 
> -- 
> View this message in context:
> http://www.nabble.com/the-cooperative-way-for-India--tf1831710.html#a5190242
> Sent from the wsfii-discuss forum at Nabble.com.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> wsfii-discuss mailing list
> wsfii-discuss <at> lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/wsfii-discuss
> 
vijay wti | 6 Jul 2006 11:42
Picon

Re: the cooperative way for India?

But, unfortunately the policies are still not conducive for local, community  based initiatives.
vijay




_______________________________________________
wsfii-discuss mailing list
wsfii-discuss <at> lists.okfn.org
http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/wsfii-discuss
john wilson | 6 Jul 2006 11:43
Picon
Favicon

Re: the cooperative way for India?


>The lack of design of a
>mechanism to spend the money is at fault.

yes, yes- beyond government goodwill, telco politics, NGO agendas, etc, 
whats required is an effective and sustainable building mechanism-

For instance, in the area of "social work" an approach has emerged called 
"Assets Based Community Development" (pioneered in Chicago), combining 
financial rigour with bottom-up community development and ownership, to 
forge stronger and more practical links between government policy/funding 
and community based and owned projects. Such a dynamic is transferable in 
principle into the space of community ICT projects...

The above is a rushed note, but to repeat my previous postings I do urge 
attention to issues of strategy, especially the social dynamic and the 
organisational/business sustainability of ICT projects.

Beyond that, the whole "rural question" is a major strategic matter.

Hence I'd advise that wsfii India convention includes a session on strategy, 
and that a range of experts (beyond ICT and technology) are invited to this 
debate.

I think the hope, as always, lies in the energy of communities to themselves 
address their needs and act to build a better future. They may need 
"outside" assistance in the form of technology/telecoms/business/social 
enterprise expertise at the outset, but the community itself provides the 
fertile soil for a project to take root and flourish...

John

>From: vvcrishna <at> radiophony.com
>Reply-To: Discuss list on the World Summit on Free Information 
>Infrastructure<wsfii-discuss <at> lists.okfn.org>
>To: Discuss list on the World Summit on Free Information 
>Infrastructure<wsfii-discuss <at> lists.okfn.org>
>Subject: Re: [wsfii-discuss] the cooperative way for India?
>Date: Thu,  6 Jul 2006 05:38:43 +0000
>
>Quoting Balaji G <balaji_g1947 <at> yahoo.com>:
>
> > I am not standing in defence of the Government for their efficiencies or
> > inefficiencies.
> > We all know that rural India is in a complete mess. Yet, if at all
> > something has progressed there, it has happened only through the 
>government.
> > Even in case of telecom, all rural teledensity increase  has taken place
> > because of public sector undertaking BSNL. Private telecom operators 
>happily
> > chose to pay penalties as against connecting in rural. On the other 
>hand,
> > Ngos and community based efforts have remained marginal.
>
>The ills of NGOs are reasonably well known - they are as subject to 
>influence
>through the need for sustainability as anyone else driven by profit. As for 
>the
>private telecom operators, the intransigence or lack of interest in 
>deploying
>the USO prior to this year is surely condemnable. It was not a tax - it was 
>a
>penalty for not deploying networks in rural areas, and no wonder that BSNL 
>was
>the only entity that provided service in the absence of any profit-oriented
>motivation (the only thing that business respond to). The lack of design of 
>a
>mechanism to spend the money is at fault.
>
>However, the government is also to blame for continuing with a regulatory 
>policy
>on braodcasting and interconnectivity that is designed to fail, and 
>disempower
>people from building their own solutions (with our without the 'aid' of
>government or business).
>
> >
> > So the onus for doing good falls only on Government. And you yourself 
>have
> > said that Government has failed to do much. The article by Mohan Mishra 
>says
> > things on similar lines too. Every one talks, but looks to only 
>Government
> > to do something, and nothing much happens. So the fault also lies as 
>much in
> > all other constituents, who only talk and eventually leave it to 
>Government
> > to do the dirty (the noble) job.
> >
> > So, where is the hope? Is anyone interested ? If others are not, and
> > Government is also not, where is the...... hope?
>
>I don't know for sure that 'NGOs' or 'self-help groups' or whatever label 
>is put
>on groups that move collectively towards helping themselves will definitely
>succeed where other processes have failed.
>
>Possibly, the change in attitude of the government will in itself be the
>greatest motivator. Is that a decent enough hope?
>
> >
> > Of course, Mr Mishra in his article has reasons to be more optimistic 
>than
> > me, as he calls for genuine action.
> >
> > Balaji
> >
> >
> >
> > Vickram Crishna-2 wrote:
> > >
> > > At a recent meeting on community radio (almost anyone would agree, the
> > > first
> > > step towards building an engaged rural populace, but not India, which
> > > still
> > > slavishly hews to colonial lines established in and for another time 
>and
> > > yes,
> > > another place), I was told that we have the proud record of 30,000
> > > internationally funded projects - all closed despite some successful
> > > 'proofs of
> > > concept'.
> > >
> > > I don't understand Balaji's question: 'why should the government bear 
>the
> > > onus
> > > for everything?'. I don't think that's anyone's case in black and 
>white,
> > > but
> > > surely the government needs to learn to step aside in areas (such as 
>basic
> > > communication) where it has failed to provide a service despite 
>enjoying a
> > > mandated monopoly for decades, and now seeks to treat the medium 
>itself as
> > > a
> > > revenue generator, ignoring its potential for positive growth?
> > >
> > > Quoting john wilson <johnresearch <at> hotmail.com>:
> > >
> > >> Balaji and all,
> > >>
> > >> Yes you highlight key points - re. government rhetoric and statements 
>of
> > >> good intent, and  opportunist projects designed to benefit from
> > >> government
> > >> funding. Whilst little is actually happening on the ground. Such
> > >> political
> > >> game-plays have a habit of leaving "people" out.
> > >>
> > >> Some remarks. At the risk of repeating myself.
> > >>
> > >> Communities in real need can end up being doubly exploited. 
>Government
> > >> and
> > >> public bodies tend to build-up expectations for matters of political
> > >> expediency. Then pilot projects that attract funding can often fail 
>due
> > >> to
> > >> ill-conceived social formulations or else opportunist motives. The
> > >> pendulum
> > >> can tend to swing from hyped-up expectations to declarations of 
>failure.
> > >> Meanwhile both government and incumbent telco have bought time, and
> > >> market
> > >> activity evolves so that the window of opportunity for local,
> > >> "first-mile"
> > >> community network projects is changed.
> > >>
> > >> At our Djusrsland convention 2 years we explored issues of strategy 
>in a
> > >> session "The Community First Mile: Strategies for Broadband Access",
> > >> foregrounding the "social" as opposed to the "technology" aspect of
> > >> community projects.
> > >>
> > >> The convention also highlighted the way in which the Djurslands.net 
>had
> > >> broken from the culture of dependancy on government and realized a
> > >> significant scale of growth through its own "self-help", 
>"co-operative"
> > >> approach (in a rural region with strong residual traditions of
> > >> agricultural/fisherman's co-operativism). - I have not seen an update
> > >> since
> > >> then, to see how the Djurslands.net project may have developed in the
> > >> evolving telecoms environment, and to what extent it may have managed 
>to
> > >> maintain a democratic community management and  economic 
>sustainability.
> > >> Has
> > >>
> > >> an updated case study of the Djursland project been produced 
>recently?
> > >> Lessons of strategy and "politics"?
> > >>
> > >> The Djursland convention also highlighted Onno Purbo's community 
>wireless
> >
> > >> networking activities in Indonesia, regarding a grassroots initiative
> > >> independent of government support/dependancy. Subsequently Onno 
>presented
> > >> to
> > >>
> > >> an Open Spectrum UK event in London, see blog notes of his 
>presentation
> > >> here
> > >>
> > >> < http://openspectrum.org.uk/wiki/wikka.php?wakka=EventOSUK01blog >. 
>The
> > >> relevance of Onno's "rural Indonesia" activities to "the rural India
> > >> situation"?
> > >>
> > >> The convention also held a workshop titled "A project that failed", 
>where
> >
> > >> Dave Hughes explored his wireless project activities in Wales re 
>issues
> > >> of
> > >> government funding, project development, community needs, etc.
> > >>
> > >> In my last posting to this list I recommended that attention be given 
>to
> > >> strategies for community project development, with focussed attention 
>to
> > >> the
> > >>
> > >> "social" as much as the "technology" aspect of the challenge. Its a 
>real
> > >> challenge. Its political. Otherwise history can be relied upon to 
>repeat
> > >> itself. Well-intentioned projects bite the dust. And make no mistake,
> > >> your
> > >> protagonists *are* applying their minds to putting you out of 
>business.
> > >>
> > >> Since the Djursland Institute has recieved its funding, I wonder 
>whether
> > >> it
> > >> has given attention to a White Paper on project design and strategy 
>re
> > >> community-based assets development? Likewise any other funded 
>advocacy
> > >> bodies that have some relationship to the "wsfii" communities of
> > >> interest,
> > >> for example the OPLAN Foundation which was set up after the Djursland
> > >> convention (with World Bank funding)?
> > >>
> > >> Where's the politics?
> > >>
> > >> John
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> >From: Balaji G <balaji_g1947 <at> yahoo.com>
> > >> >Reply-To: Discuss list on the World Summit on Free Information
> > >> >Infrastructure<wsfii-discuss <at> lists.okfn.org>
> > >> >To: wsfii-discuss <at> lists.okfn.org
> > >> >Subject: Re: [wsfii-discuss] the cooperative way for India?
> > >> >Date: Sat, 1 Jul 2006 04:08:49 -0700 (PDT)
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >Dear Arun
> > >> >
> > >> >The article attached by you below has some pointers to the real 
>issue.
> > >> >
> > >> >On rural connectivity situation in India, the only thing happening 
>is
> > >> the
> > >> >Government inititaive on CSC.  Most others, including large 
>corporates
> > >> and
> > >> >NGOs, stop at announcements and events or research papers,  and do 
>not
> > >> even
> > >> >have intention to do something substantive.
> > >> >
> > >> >Even the intention to participate in several PPP (Public Private
> > >> >partnesrhip) programmes is for them to benefit from Government 
>largesse
> > >> >only. So, who is interested in furtherance of cause of rural?
> > >> >
> > >> >The issue, that comes to mind  is,  why should the onus be always on 
>the
> > >> >government for evertything?
> > >> >
> > >> >Balaji
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >Arun Mehta wrote:
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Leading up to the World Summit on Free Information 
>Infrastructures,
> > >> > > wsfii.org, in Dharamsala, international participants may be
> > >> interested
> > >> > > in understanding the rural connectivity situation in India.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > The article below is right, when it says that mostly so far, all 
>we
> > >> > > have had is pilot projects, and lots of conferences. The 
>government
> > >> is
> > >> > > indeed trying to set up 100,000 telecenters, but so far, two 
>years
> > >> > > after Mission 2007 was launched, there is little evidence of 
>anything
> > >> > > on the ground. At the London wsfii, I predicted, hoping to be 
>proved
> > >> > > wrong, that not much would have been achieved by the government 
>bythe
> > >> > > time of the 2006 wsfii. Actually, a lot less has been achieved, 
>than
> > >> I
> > >> > > expected.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > As regards viability, why do we forget Metcalfe's law: the value 
>of a
> > >> > > network is proportional to the square of its size? In other 
>words,
> > >> > > viability will improve dramatically if we network all 600,000 
>instead
> > >> > > of just one-sixth: if 6 villages share a telecenter, a lot of the
> > >> > > business will be lost: all the communications between the 6! 
>People
> > >> > > surely communicate with neighboring villages a lot more than they 
>do
> > >> > > with people far away. The old and the disabled will not be able 
>to
> > >> use
> > >> > > a telecenter, unless it is in their own village.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > The Dharamsala WSFII could not be happening at a more opportune 
>time,
> > >> > > to point out another way. No longer do we need large telcos to
> > >> > > condescend to provide connectivity to villages. People can do it
> > >> > > themselves, as the airjaldi network in Dharamsala and others 
>around
> > >> > > the world so ably demonstrate.
> > >> > > Arun
> > >> > >
> > >> > > http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1648695.cms
> > >> > > Rural connect: The cooperative way
> > >> > > MOHAN MISHRA
> > >> > >
> > >> > > On the face of it, the growing Naxalite menace may be treated as 
>a
> > >> law
> > >> > > and order problem. But the root cause of the issue, as 
>articulated by
> > >> > > Dr MS Swaminathan, the father of Green Revolution, is: "Ignore
> > >> > > farmers, see Red spread". Naxalism, along with farmers' suicides, 
>are
> > >> > > only the visible symptoms of a deeper disease: the worsening 
>plight
> > >> of
> > >> > > agriculture dependent population and widening urban-rural
> > >> disparities.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > To see how stark these disparities are, just take a look at the
> > >> > > teledensity figures. Despite the euphoria over recent telecom 
>growth,
> > >> > > rural teledensity remains a measly 2% compared to 31% in urban 
>areas.
> > >> > > The teledensity growth in the country has been led by higher 
>urban
> > >> > > volumes while large parts of rural India still remain 
>unconnected.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Rural development is an urgent need and towards that goal,
> > >> connect-ing
> > >> > > the villages is the first step. There has also been a growing
> > >> interest
> > >> > > from all quarters including numerous corporates, in solving the
> > >> > > problems of rural India using Information and Communication
> > >> Technology
> > >> > > (ICT). While there have been a slew of initiatives and 
>announcements,
> > >> > > substantive results have been far and few.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > One reason is that many tend to treat the matter as primarily a
> > >> > > technology issue. The solutions offered would, therefore, have 
>been
> > >> > > around innovation at the product level and range from the earlier
> > >> > > Simputers to the recent $100 laptop.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > These are only some options to the challenge of connecting 
>villages.
> > >> > > Very few have attempted to put together an integrated solution to
> > >> > > overcome the challenge of connecting rural India. Second,
> > >> > > sustainability remains a major stumbling block in the game of 
>rolling
> > >> > > out rural kiosks.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > No one has still found a satisfactory answer to the issue. Says 
>Dr MS
> > >> > > Swaminathan, whose MSSRF village kiosks are an industry 
>forerunner:
> > >> > > "Economic sustainability may not happen in immediate terms, but 
>it is
> > >> > > more a question of social sustainability."
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Pankaj Baveja, founder of Project Param, and a pioneer in rural
> > >> > > computing, endorses these views, but adds: "That does not mean 
>that
> > >> > > solutions to sustainability are not possible. Issues are not so 
>much
> > >> > > to do with choices in technology and connectivity.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > It is more to do with ownership-operations model and with the 
>nuances
> > >> > > in implementation." Third, with the trend of showcasing, only
> > >> > > conferences and seminars have been proliferating while there 
>hasn't
> > >> > > been substantive work on field.
> > >> > >
> > >> > >  For substantive achievements in connecting rural India, a way
> > >> forward
> > >> > > may be the cooperative way. A shining example of marriage of
> > >> > > technology with cooperative linkages for real grassroots
> > >> > > transformation is Amul.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Its manufacturing facilities are a point of envy for even the 
>western
> > >> > > world, and so are its IT-enabled logistics. In the words of the 
>Amul
> > >> > > CEO BM Vyas: "Amul is not a food company. It is an IT company in 
>the
> > >> > > food business". That is true rural empowerment using ICT.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Cooperatives have been deeply entwined with the lives of rural
> > >> people,
> > >> > > fostering economic activity with linkages extending right up to 
>the
> > >> > > grassroots level. They have been playing an important role in 
>rural
> > >> > > development.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Not many may be aware that in the country there are over 5 lakh
> > >> > > cooperative societies with membership exceeding 22 crore. But 
>more
> > >> > > important, the principles of equity along with economic growth 
>are
> > >> > > embodied in the basic co-operative structures, and hence the
> > >> > > co-operative way is the natural way for rural development -- and 
>for
> > >> > > reducing disparities.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Recognising the need for rural development, the government is 
>doing
> > >> > > its bit by launching a bold initiative of setting up 100,000 
>Common
> > >> > > Service Centres by 2007. Pankaj Baveja, says: "The needs in the
> > >> > > vil-lages are so high that this programme is bound to deliver
> > >> positive
> > >> > > re-sults. So, progress it must in its implementation."
> > >> > >
> > >> > > The task of rural development requires a concerted cooperative 
>effort
> > >> > > and participation from all quarters. Along with the government 
>and
> > >> the
> > >> > > co-operative sector, private industry needs to come forward to
> > >> > > contribute substantively towards rural transformation, taking 
>things
> > >> > > beyond limited CSR activities.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > The visionaries and captains in the industry need to look at 
>rural
> > >> > > India -- not as mere markets -- but as investments. And this they
> > >> need
> > >> > > to do in their enlightened self interest. That may just be the 
>key to
> > >> > > sustain-able rural transformation.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > _______________________________________________
> > >> > > wsfii-discuss mailing list
> > >> > > wsfii-discuss <at> lists.okfn.org
> > >> > > http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/wsfii-discuss
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> >_______________________________________________
> > >> >wsfii-discuss mailing list
> > >> >wsfii-discuss <at> lists.okfn.org
> > >> >http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/wsfii-discuss
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> wsfii-discuss mailing list
> > >> wsfii-discuss <at> lists.okfn.org
> > >> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/wsfii-discuss
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > wsfii-discuss mailing list
> > > wsfii-discuss <at> lists.okfn.org
> > > http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/wsfii-discuss
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> > View this message in context:
> > 
>http://www.nabble.com/the-cooperative-way-for-India--tf1831710.html#a5190242
> > Sent from the wsfii-discuss forum at Nabble.com.
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > wsfii-discuss mailing list
> > wsfii-discuss <at> lists.okfn.org
> > http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/wsfii-discuss
> >
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>wsfii-discuss mailing list
>wsfii-discuss <at> lists.okfn.org
>http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/wsfii-discuss

Gmane