In addition to looking at the substantive elements of a digital inclusion program, it is also critical to contemplate at the front end what pressure groups and policy makers will help shape the idea into policies with real dollars attached * and, equally important, how it will achieve political sustainability in an era of dwindling (Federal) discretionary spending.
On the first question, digital inclusion programs need powerful champions * bipartisan political support and industry approbation are a must. Even with an ace in the hole, one doesn’t always come out on top in the slapdash budget process. Witness what happened to a $50 million request for the office of David Brailer, the newly appointed health IT tsar. While the stars were seemingly in alignment around the promotion of electronic medical records for all Americans, the HUD request went unheeded. While we continue to hear that Walmart wields more advanced technology than some of our doctors and hospitals, the promise of public seed money for health information technology demonstration projects remains unfulfilled. So even tying one’s agenda to a front burner political concern - reducing health care costs through IT efficiencies * does not guarantee success. The second issue deals with political sustainability. The Technology Opportunities Program was formed at the Big Bang of our Nation’s commitment to digital inclusion. Since it was one of the first, it was naturally very broad in its mission and reach, embracing education, economic development, health, public information, and public safety applications of technology. Our eligibility criteria included practically any not-for-profit organization, including public institutions. And all these folks were annually vying for about $15 million. In the past several years, this averaged out to less than $500,000 per grant, with the total pie spread out across geographic regions and application areas. Now, this seems like a lot of money to a Plugged In or an Eastmont Computing Center, but to the larger organizations that actually have staff or overhead budgets to hire lobbyists, these dollars would rarely justify the investment of staff time and resources to defend this or any similiarly designed program. There was no AARP pushing for expanded prescription drug benefits. Not even close. So I would advise everyone with a twinkle in your eye about constructing the next great program to don your boxing gloves if it is an "ICT policy worth fighting for." Because you, your allies, and/or your constituents will need them to step into a political ring in which discretionary dollars are contested more fiercely as their share of the total Federal budget continues to shrink. Anthony G. Wilhelm, Ph.D. Director, Technology Opportunities Program National Telecommunications and Information Administration U.S. Department of Commerce 1401 Constitution Avenue, N.W. Room 4893 Washington, D.C. 20230 (202) 482-1216 fax: (202) 501-5136 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.ntia.doc.gov/top/ >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 12/05/04 07:56PM >>> Michael, Here are two quick suggested additions from an international viewpoint: > * Digital Literacy Change to: * Literacies ** Basic ** Digital [others can be added] > * Access > ** Connectivity (Local Infrastructure) > ** Hardware for the People > ** Accessibility for those with disabilities and functional > limitations Access is recognized as having many dimensions. Bridges.org, as I recall, lists up to a dozen. In a way, discussion of the kind of physical access you list leads naturally to discussion of "soft access," i.e., access is more than the (connected) hardware. The field of localization, of course, deals with how to make access more meaningful and relevant to users. Localization could have its own heading in your list as follows, or be combined with your Access list as "Access & localization": * Localization ** Fonts and input methods for appropriate language(s) ** Software interfaces in appropriate language(s) ** Culturally appropriate themes of interfaces ** Locale information ** Multimedia & non-text interfaces, as needed Taken together, the two suggestions intend to cover the ground between the user and the technology: user skills need to be considered and enhanced (everyone is learning; some need more help at any given time and for whatever particular task), and the technology needs to be adapted in various ways to meet the user communities. Don Osborn Bisharat.net Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > hello everyone! > > How can we convince the resources that be that we need a > successor to TOP? How can present a Community Networking Vision > worth fighting for, at all levels? > > What are the elements of an ICT policy? What should be a part > of our vision for community networking? > > I'm presenting the following as a rough draft for your > consideration and input. > > To begin: What is missing? What can be better phrased? > > > > Elements of an ICT plan for your Polity (Working Draft) > ========================================================== > > * Digital Literacy > > * Workforce Development/Career Lattices > > * Digital Entrepreneurship/Investment > > * Access > ** Connectivity (Local Infrastructure) > ** Hardware for the People > ** Accessibility for those with disabilities and functional > limitations > > > * Backbone/Broadband Deployment > ** Management of Public Resources > ** Right of Way > ** Open Access? Open Platforms? > > * e-Government > ** Service Delivery & Coordination > ** Open Government > ** Government Efficiency & Cost Savings > > * Health Informatics & Telemedicine > > * Civic Particpation and Protections > ** Identity Protection > ** Community Access Media > ** Communication Rights > ** Equitable Inclusion and Opportunity > ** Consumer Protections - Service Rights > > * Bleeding Edge > ** Grid and High Capacity Computing > ** New Technologies > > I'd like your help in organizing the items, and in > identifying gaps. What items could be better phrased? What > else should be included? > > This draft is taken from here: > http://www.omidyar.net/group/state-by-state/ > > There is an AFCN discussion forum here: > http://www.afcn.org/node/view/174 > > I established the workspace in the Omidyar Netwrk so as to > attract a wider crowd and to engage other groups and not have > them worry about turf and other organizational overhead at this > time. > > > I welcome all of your input and involvement, and will write more > on the State-by-State project. > > Regards, > > > Michael Maranda > President, AFCN & CTCNet Chicago > http://www.afcn.org/ > > > http://www.omidyar.net/group/state-by-state/ > _______________________________________________ > DIGITALDIVIDE mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://mailman.edc.org/mailman/listinfo/digitaldivide > To unsubscribe, send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with > the word UNSUBSCRIBE in the body of the message. > _______________________________________________ DIGITALDIVIDE mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.edc.org/mailman/listinfo/digitaldivide To unsubscribe, send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word UNSUBSCRIBE in the body of the message. _______________________________________________ DIGITALDIVIDE mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.edc.org/mailman/listinfo/digitaldivide To unsubscribe, send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word UNSUBSCRIBE in the body of the message.
