[Advisors] a foundation funding model

[Marita Moll]

Yes, I think you are absolutely right on here James.  We are dealing 
with a particularly social policy adverse group on the Hill these 
days.  We absolutely must align with their policies or go 
home.  Skilled labour is an area that presents an opportunity.  And 
forget about any kind of digital economy strategy.  As it is in 
various other areas (environment, to mention one), their digital 
economy strategy is an "unstrategy."  He (policy advisor) pretty much 
made that clear.

I think we have some great suggestions coming forward under this 
"foundation model" thread.  It is not going to happen overnight (or 
even before Christmas).  If we are going to make this kind of 
suggestion, we really do have to do some homework and keep thinking 
it through.  I do have an acquaintance who runs a fairly large 
foundation and after Christmas, perhaps I'll invite him out for lunch.

BTW:  I completely agree that the COIL name is a silly one. Garth had 
a good rework of it -- RECOIL! (lol). I've always been terrible at 
that sort of thing.  But I'm  just throwing out suggestions here -- 
and I'm totally happy to give them up to a better idea as soon as it 
comes forward.

Marita


At 05:10 PM 15/12/2011, James Van Leeuwen wrote:
>If the federal government is the target, the critical question to 
>start with is "What do they care about?"
>
>
>A key observation in Garth's document is that the federal government 
>(still) has no Digital Strategy.
>
>A more salient observation is that the federal government has 
>virtually no strategic capacity for anything, other than protecting 
>Canada's massively vested interests in primary resource production.
>
>That strategy is now blowing up in their faces (Kyoto, Durban, etc.).
>
>
>Canada is a backwater in the Digital Economy because most of the 
>country including government is not looking for a new gravy train to ride.
>
>We are not suffering an economic crisis. Most Canadians believe the 
>country is relatively immune from economic crisis, because the world 
>will always need what we produce blah blah blah.
>
>We will get our asses kicked sooner than later, but for now there is 
>no incentive other than private profit driving development of 
>Canada's digital economy.
>
>With the notable exception of RIM, we aren't even in the game. And 
>RIM is not looking like a global contender these days.
>
>
>Any proposed solution for CAP funding that involves the federal 
>government must align with Conservative priorities and their 
>corresponding strategies.
>
>Pragmatism is critical here, and that means principles have to be compromised.
>
>Making this a social justice/inclusion issue will merely inflame 
>dogmatic, knee-jerk vindictiveness on the part of the Conservatives, 
>which would obviously be counterproductive.
>
>
>An issue that Canadian government and industry alike really care 
>about these days is the looming shortage of skilled labour.
>
>It has the potential to cripple almost every industry in the country 
>over the coming decade, and it is practically certain to further 
>compromise Canada's economic productivity (we already suck, per capita).
>
>We will need hundreds of thousands of new skilled workers to take up 
>the slack, and this is probably the best possible leverage for 
>securing program funding from any provincial or federal government.
>
>Rural and remote Canada including First Nations is a vast pool of 
>potential talent.
>
>Providing access to education and training will be critically 
>important to tapping this pool, and Internet access will play a 
>fundamental role.
>
>
>Define the roles and outcomes that 'NewCAP' could deliver in meeting 
>this critical need, and build the proposal around them.
>
>Brand the initiative so that its purpose is clear, and so that the 
>brand makes it easy for the Conservatives to sell.
>
>The Policy Advisor for the Industry Minister made the 'rebranding' 
>point for a reason.
>
>CAP is fundamentally a social program, and sounds like one.
>
>NewCAP has to be an economic productivity and wealth creation 
>program, and it has to sound like one.
>
>Sorry Marita, BUT they won't sell something called COIL :^)
>
>Hope this helps.
>
>
>JvL
>
>
>P.S.: I met with the Director of our local library yesterday. She 
>says two thirds of their CAP site users are from the First Nation 
>down the road.
>
>The FN doesn't have its own CAP site, and without FN patronage, our 
>local CAP site wouldn't have the numbers to make it work.
>
>The library is about to undergo a major community-funded renovation 
>to expand digital learning capacity.
>
>The community investment would give them much better leverage with 
>government funding programs... if there were any.
>
>
>
>On 2011-12-13, at 8:45 AM, Marita Moll wrote:
>
>>
>>I have looked over discussion we had exactly this time last year on 
>>a new vision for CAP.  It pointed right back to a document 
>>developed by Garth a few years ago.  It has lots of nice elements 
>>and we could improve and wordsmith it forever.  A copy is attached 
>>but let`s not go back there right now.  If we want to continue to 
>>benefit from a federal contribution to this program, it seems 
>>pretty clear that we need to propose a new funding model!!! that 
>>they can buy into.
>>
>>So, just to get us all started, here is one idea:
>>
>>We suggest that funding be continued under the infrastructure 
>>program for one more year.  I'm not sure who is ultimately in 
>>charge of the infrastructure funding -- if it is Treasury Board 
>>(Clement) we would be lucky.
>>
>>Over the next year, a foundation structure should be set up to take 
>>over the program.  This foundation could be kick started with $1B?? 
>>from the upcoming spectrum auction.  Whatever the amount, it should 
>>be enough to generate income that would provide core funding at the 
>>current level for about 3500 sites across the country and residual 
>>funds that could act as a micro loan agency to community sites 
>>needing help setting up income generating services to grow the 
>>centers.  The CRTC also has funding pockets that could feed into 
>>such a model -- if they wanted to.
>>
>>A new name?  How about the Community Online Internet Legacy (COIL) fund.
>>
>>If we do some agreement here, let's remember that the kiss of death 
>>to any strategy is its adoption by the opposition.  Whatever the 
>>idea, we need to get it to inside champions and see if it flies 
>>(maybe even this fellow Winchester we met with).  If we can't keep 
>>the program alive during this government's mandate, well 
>>.....  I'll let you fill in the rest.
>>
>>Your thoughts
>>
>>Marita  <CAPvision-Internet Tree.doc>