<html xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"
xmlns:ns0="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags">
<head>
<meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 11 (filtered medium)">
<style>
<!--
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:Arial;
color:navy;}
@page Section1
{size:595.3pt 841.9pt;
margin:72.0pt 90.0pt 72.0pt 90.0pt;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
</head>
<body lang=EN-AU link=blue vlink=purple>
<div class=Section1>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>>> </span></font>Shahiduddin Akbar
comments that "Nowhere in the world, Telecentre has widely expanded".<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>Arun I believe the reason for this (an aspect possibly integral to any
WSIS presentation) is because most early Telecentre’s were developed by comparatively
affluent communities where the success of the Telecentre resulted in conceptual
obsolescence and project transformation. There are arguably a great many more
Telecentre’s today, however we do not call them Telecentre’s –
These are Internet Cafés, Library PAC’s (Public Access Centre’s),
BIC’s & BEC’s (Business Incubation and Enterprise Centres) and
other point-of-presence initiatives born from the original concept of a Telecentre.
A great many of these societies have also developed to the extent where
physical points-of-presence are no longer required (wide domestic broadband
dispersal and other modes of fostering access, familiarisation, training and
content development). The number of Telecentre’s is neither static nor
declining… rather the concept is evolving as expected of any community initiative
facing changes in community and market conditions (albeit Telecentre’s
contributed to this change).<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>These are also communities where a concept of artificially sustaining a
Telecentre (often cited by Government grant providers and others as an overriding
requirement of all Telecentre’s, although argued less so by most
practitioners), can in fact be counterproductive to the overriding mission of community
economic development. Technology and ICT providers do not enter a market and
generate competitive advantage when the market is dominated by a single entity
artificially sustained by Government (Australia lost a great many of our small
community ISP’s and other ICT initiatives before we learnt the truth of
this lesson and ceased funding Telecentre’s in affluent communities). <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>Matters of sustainability and Telecentre growth projections are aspects
specific to communities lacking the economic and/or educational base and ability
to move the mission of a Telecentre to the next stage of development. I am very
supportive of a concept to sustain and develop Telecentre’s where a Telecentre
is required to meet the objectives of a needy community – less than supportive
of expending tax-payer funds to artificially prop-up Telecentre’s acting
in competition with other service providers in affluent communities. In
acknowledgement that funds will always be limited, I believe part of our focus
should be to construct a model or formulae to help determine just where sustainability
support and growth is required (the Solomon Islands?) and where such support is
not required and possibly detrimental to other development (Sydney and
surrounds for example). WSIS could well be used as a vessel to help support the
equitable deployment of resources, and I would like nothing more than to see
Australia redirect some funds away from local initiatives and financially support
initiatives in the Solomon Islands on a basis of recognising the importance of
Telecentre’s for these communities as a focus of international aid. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>Rgds, Don <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'> </span></font><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>