FINAL PLENARY:  WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?
Thursday, August 19
3:30 p.m.


     After the session on the future of community networking, the
working groups retired to talk over what they had heard, and to
develop recommendations to bring to the final plenary session.  There
was a surprising amount of unanimity.  Bill Graham, from Industry and
Science Canada, presented a summary of their discussions and
conclusions.

     He reported that four of the five working groups agreed on the
need for a national organization.  One group had been split, but its
disagreements were more a matter of timing than anything.  They had
agreed on an organization if necessary, but not necessarily
organization.  Several of the group thought it is too early to codify
a young movement.  They pointed to the Internet, which they said runs
by magic; let's give the FreeNets a chance to develop the same magic.

     On the other hand, the group was warned that 20 years ago there
was another new way of communicating electronically, and there was
hope that it would develop into a truly democratic medium.  There was
hope that all Canadians would have access to it; and that they would
be able to use it to communicate among themselves, rather than simply
receiving communications from corporate programmers.  That medium was
cable television, and we know how much success there was in realizing
that vision.  It is not easy for anyone to get on the community
channels, and even if someone succeeds, no one else is watching.  It
was suggested that having a national organization to lobby the
fledgling cable industry and government policy makers might have led
to a different ending.

     The other four groups thought a national organization is
desirable now, and they listed ten activities for it:

1.   Approach governments and large potential donors for support.  A
     single organization could coordinate fundraising and support
     campaigns, and reduce the chances of "donor fatigue."

2.   Act as a community-based network clearing house.  It could
     collect lists of requirements, and coordinate the distribution of
     equipment donated "in-kind," to avoid gluts in some areas and
     shortages in others.  It could also distribute funds obtained by
     the national organization.

3.   Facilitate and coordinate information collection and
     distribution.  For example, Vancouver might be responsible for
     collecting and distributing some kinds of information about
     British Columbia, and Victoria might be responsible for
     provincial government information.  Ottawa would be responsible
     for federal government sources.

4.   Coordinate user registration -- possibly develop a single login
     id and password for all Canadian FreeNets.

5.   Coordinate and operate internal UseNet/Email conferences on
     organizational topics through such mechanisms as a listserv for
     people who want to start community-based information networks,
     and starting a Canadian-based FreeNet equivalent to the
     international Communet news group.

6.   Develop standards for software.  Improve FreePort software,
     including development of standards for presentation of French
     language diacritics.

7.   Information sharing and technical support, including evaluation
     of developing technologies.

8.   Incorporate and obtain charitable status to facilitate
     fundraising.

9.   Encourage and coordinate the promotion of FreeNets in small and
     isolated communities.

10.  Lobby governments, regulators, and communications companies
     (e.g., carriers, CA*net, regional networks, etc.) on issues
     important to FreeNets -- rates and tariffs, policies to ensure
     access for community networks, access to CANARIE, Ontario
     Telecommunications Strategy activities, etc.

There also seemed to be general agreement that a structure, such as
the one proposed by Garth Graham, would be suitable (See conference
paper #6).

David Sutherland, of the National Capital FreeNet, promised to
establish a listserv to discuss the organization further on-line, and
to set up an anonymous ftp site to distribute the conference material. 
Strangelove Press volunteered assistance in publishing a hard copy
version of the conference proceedings.

Brian Campbell, from the Vancouver FreeNet organizing committee,
reported that the Canadian Libraries Association had recently passed a
resolution supporting the development of FreeNets in Canada.  He
pointed to the need to lobby governments at all levels on information
policy issues.  The libraries are organizing a National Information
Rights Week in the last half of March, 1994.  Campbell urged FreeNets
to participate, by promoting access to networks and information.  He
hopes there will be a national organization to lend its support to the
event.

Sutherland said there had been considerable support for the idea of
holding another conference next year, and proposed on-line discussion
to set that in motion.

Finally, several participants reminded the conference that it was
mostly made up of white, male, heterosexual speakers, and strongly
pushed to have everyone make serious efforts to ensure that the
community using FreeNets reflects the communities they hope to
represent.  This led to some discussion of issues such as quotas, who
is responsible, etc., and concluded that efforts are needed.

The conference closed with special thanks to Garth Graham and Kyla
Huckerby, for their dedication and efforts that led to this being such
a successful conference.