ABOUT COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY ON COMMUNITY-BASED NETWORKS...

     There's a danger in generating revenue by including pay-per-
use information on a freenet.  What happens to the quality of the
information being provided for free?  Will it continue to be
available free of charge, or migrate to pay-per-use?  The feeling
is that the proliferation of 1-800 numbers offered by businesses
indicates there is plenty of information they want disseminated
for free, so a deterioration in the quality of free information
on a freenet may not be such an imminent danger.  Canadian
freenets haven't yet addressed the issue of providing gateways to
commercial services, but again, this practice does not
necessarily mean the quality of free information is in jeopardy.

On the topic of commmercial providers vs. FreeNets: one group
believed that the two will not be providing the same services,
and information providers will decide which forum they wish to
use.  The downside is the possibility that some of the more
exciting applications may only provide their services over
commercial networks.


THOUGHTS ON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SMALL BUSINESS AND FREENETS

     Michael Strangelove expanded on one issue that he addressed
during the plenary about how Freenets can possibly embrace the
business community.  One idea that he put out for discussion was
that perhaps the Freenet could allow him and other small
businesses to pay for a dedicated terminal in a mall that would
be accessible to the general public.  This terminal would have a
selection on the first menu for access to the Freenet as well as
other information about his company and other product
information.  

     Peter MacDougall, with the NCF Public Access Committee,
indicated that this type of arrangement would not be in violation
of existing policies and that it would be something that they
might consider.

     Tom Grundner's remarks last evening on the comparison of
Freenet to the Public Broadcasting System in the US was used as
another example of how Freenet can recognize the support from
businesses.  Similar to how a TV program is sponsored in part by
a particular company, the Freenet could indicate the
participation of business in either the development of the system
or in the supply of information.  The NCF are currently doing
this to some degree, by displaying the name of the company that
has paid for the phone line when it is accessed by a user.

     An example of where it might be acceptable to give
recognition for providing information was given by using a
grocery store as an information provider.  If a particular
grocery decided to accept the responsibility for providing
information about produce then they may receive a note in that
section of the forum indicating their participation.  ie:  "The
Producer has been brought to by So and So's Grocery".

     A question was asked about allowing organizations to conduct
business on the Freenet and what would be commercial use and what
would be individual use.  Again the grocery store was used as an
example, and acceptable interaction on Freenet might be an
individual placing a grocery order to his local store.  However a
definite unacceptable use would be if the grocery store attempted
to advertise special prices on products over the system.  


IF THE NCF IS SO POPULAR THEN WHY NOT CHARGE A FEE AND GIVE
BETTER ACCESS?

     This question relates mainly to the philosophy and ethics of
what the mandate of a Freenet should be.  The policy of the NCF
freenet is that it does not charge for information and it does
not pay for information.  The intended purpose of this Freenet is
for community access that is available to everyone and they do
not wish to create different classes of users.

     Other than the moral obligations to the principles of
Freenet, there are no real restrictions on such activity.  It is
possible however that if a community began charging for access
and/or allowing commercial use, that it may not be accepted as a
member of the international Freenet community through the
National Public Telecomputing Network (NPTN) in the US (or a
similar international organization of this nature that might be
established).

     It was pointed out that although Freenets are FREE to use,
they are not FREE to run.  The organizers of the Halinet project
are planning to have Freenet as part of a larger system which
will have commercial access.  There will not be a charge to
access Freenet, but the costs for commercial use may be used to
help subsidize some of the costs of the Freenet.


THE VALUE OF FREENET INFORMATION

One participant said he found it interesting that the focus over
the last two days has been on access isssues, but not on seeing
the commercial potential of information being put on the freenet. 
For example, he used the political candidate postings outlined
during the morning Theme Session.  These postings could be of
extreme value to political analysts, over and above the use
casual readers can make of them in deciding for whom to cast
their votes.  One explanation for this lack of consideration of
the commercial potential is that freenets tend not to be set up
by people from entrepreneurial backgrounds and as another
participant in the session pointed out, many of the attendees at
this conference are not themselves information providers, but
information users.


AH!  SWEET REASON!

The question of whether you should expect higher quality
information if you pay for it than if you get it for free led to
other philosophical questions:  

     Is access to information a right or a priviledge?  Most
     agreed that access to basic information (the example cited
     was local government action, including minutes of city
     council meetings) is a right, but there is some debate as to
     where "basic" information ends and "value added" begins.

     How much Internet access can you give your users?  Many use
     freenet as a gateway to Internet, in order to avoid long
     distance charges.  At issue is the question of
     affordability, insofar as you have to determine whether a
     user can actually afford the costs of access.  The rule of
     thumb for libraries seems to be, "provide as much access as
     you can" and it applies to in-house services, as well as to
     Internet.


OPINIONS ON A WHOLE LOT OF ISSUES...

     Edmonton considering providing a special gateway to
commercial enterprises that would support the gateway and pay a
fee to the Freenet.   

     The idea of allowing companies a dedicated line for access
to the freenet was turned down on the basis of the precedent it
set and the fact that this was essentially a commercial service
that can be had elsewhere.

     As a fund-raiser, offering advertising in the form of
acknowledgement of a company's sponsoring a phone-line, which
dial-up users see when they contact that line was deemed
acceptable.

     It was recognized that services such as advertising for
hotels and restaurants would represent a problem for commercial
policy.  Bu it was generally agreed that these services had a
greater social service component than commercial component.

     Advertsing should not be sold because core services could
become dependeant on a volatile source of funds, ie.  bad "press"
on the net equals a pulling of sponsorship.

     Commercial policy will have to be flexible across Freenets;
particlualrly in the north where large corporations (like mining
companies) might be the sole source of funding and therefore
require a certain commercial presence.

     Two possibilities were discussed for avoiding conflicts
between funding and commercial sponsors:  create a national
organization to collect all donations on behalf of the freenets
which could then redistribution of an "impartial" basis; or set
up an "independant" Freenet foundation in each city to collect
donations for the freenet as a charitable foundation.