[Advisors] Let community re-think community

[Garth Graham]

The alternative to second-guessing the direction of the federal =
government is to begin by thinking though what we ourselves see as TC=92s =
role now.  Yes, TC has always said that local business development is =
key component of community-based socio-economic development and =
political change in a digital society.  But it is only one component of =
many.  To use a double negative, I don=92t disagree with James and =
Michael.  But I think TC=92s mandate goes broader than what they have =
addressed.
=20
Having said earlier, =93So play where the puck is,=94 on 2012-04-07, at =
11:44 AM, James Van Leeuwen wrote:
> The Conservatives have indicated interest if there is a new champion =
and a new plan (i.e., no connection back to the Libs). =85The plan will =
have to revolve around economic development.
=20
On 2012-04-25, at 9:26 PM, James Van Leeuwen wrote:
> If small business development is where the $$ are, how can we be about =
small business development? =85 At risk of stating the obvious, the =
present political climate doesn't lend itself to initiatives rooted in =
social justice and inclusion. =85 The federal government is going in the =
opposite direction.
=20
On 2012-04-10, at 3:34 PM, Michael Corbett wrote:
> =85. I wholeheartedly agree with both James and Marie=85.A new plan =
and program is needed that has some social aspects to it but focuses =
around economic development=85. As James pointed out it has to have no =
connection to the Liberals and needs to show ROI and not just social =
infrastructure.
=20
On 2012-04-26, at 11:10 AM, Michael Corbett wrote:
> The new parameters that must be included are those that the government =
will feel comfortable recognizing as important, critical, deliverable =
and will generate votes. =85. The new CAP must show how it contributes =
directly currently and in the short term to the economy, How it is part =
of the solution and can supply some of the tools for growth and broaden =
the economic base at the community and regional and =
territorial/provincial and national levels. Economies of scale. And, as =
was said during the call yesterday, having some private sector partners =
is always advantageous. =85 James is right on below - its about jobs, =
the economy, and growth.
=20
Ever since the abandonment of =93Connecting Canadians=94 by the Martin =
Government, the approach to telecommunications policy of both the =
liberals and conservatives has been =93market-based.=94  That is to say =
they abandoned responsibility to regulate the uses of ICTs for =
development in favour of the incumbent telecommunications carriers.  =
Nothing in the draft or discussion of the =93digital economy strategy=94 =
has suggested this will change. Since we=92ve always known that =
incumbent telecommunications carriers don=92t do economic development, =
common sense has warned us that a market-based policy was always going =
to be a dead-end.  What then would be our intention in telling the =
federal government what they want to hear?  Our entire history has been =
taken up by telling them exactly what they don't want to hear!
=20
The Mission Statement that prefaces TC=92s website states:
> =95    To ensure that all Canadians are able to participate in =
community-based communications and electronic information services by =
promoting and supporting local community network initiatives.
> =95    To represent and promote the Canadian community networking =
movement at the national and international level.
=20
TC was and remains community-based and focused, not market-based or =
federally focused.  Now we are in no danger of committing the sin of =
biting the hand that feeds us, since we aren=92t being fed. That=92s =
good news, because it frees us to get back to first principles.  We do =
not exist to act as an agent for the implementation of federal policy, =
although we do have a responsibility and mandate to state what good =
policy might be.=20
=20
Here is one of best and most succinct statements of what that mandate =
means to us and of what it means to be grounded in community in the =
Internet Age:
> Beyond the Information Society: Enabling Communities to Create the =
World We Want.
> http://www.tc.ca/TCWSIS_flyer_e_low.pdf
=20
I think we need to be asking ourselves, how has that changed, or has it? =
 If it hasn=92t, then what do we need to do or say that puts community =
at the center of any current articulation of our strategy?   We also =
need to be asking ourselves, how are we doing with acting on that =
statement, and what should we do differently now to be more effective?
=20
By focusing on =93playing where the puck is,=94 I believe that James and =
Michael are pointing to tactics, not strategy.  As long as the =
objectives we have set for ourselves, in support of the central and very =
much changed role of community in digital society, are both clear and =
clearly grounded in voices that emerge from community, I see no harm in =
a tactical component of a strategy=92s action plan that looks at the =
role of governments.  But the position I take on that role in my own =
work is that the actions of states that are being transformed against =
their will into informational states are mostly attempts to avoid =
alternative modes of governance that are replacing them.  If it=92s =
broke, then we have to fix it ourselves.
=20
One major next step is thinking through the PROCESS of strategy =
formulation.  Here=92s a neat cautionary note on how NOT to do it!
> Why Innovation Dies:
> http://steveblank.com/2012/05/01/why-innovation-dies/
=20
Here=92s a note on what to do, even if the how still needs a lot of =
work:
> =93The future is completely in motion=97it isn't this fixed point out =
there that we're all sort of running for and can't do anything about. =
The future is made every day by the actions of people. Because of that, =
people need to be active participants in that future. The biggest way =
you can affect the future is to talk about it with your family, your =
friends, your government.=94   Brian David Johnson, Futurist, Intel =
Corporation, quoted in: Larry Greenemeier. Professional Seer. Scientific =
American, May 2012. 80-83.

Here=92s some thoughts on what to keep in mind in talking about that =
future:
1. All adaptation to digital society is local
=20
2. Adaption to anything gets harder when the focal points of attention =
are uncertain and complex.
=20
3. Now well into that digital society, most communities no longer have a =
clear picture of what focuses a community's attention and thus what =
attractors affect its self-organization and definition.
=20
4. Yet there are communities of practice encompassing the stewards of =
community-based uses of ICTs for development that have a very clear =
picture of what focuses the attention of community in a digital society.
=20
5. Rule one of community development has always been and still remains - =
people want to talk.  Let them.
=20
On 2012-04-25, at 1:36 PM, James Van Leeuwen wrote:
> Where to Start: Posing the Right Question
> For the purpose of ultimately defining clear and meaningful shared =
objectives and an effective strategy for achieving them, we need a =
single question that will lead directly to a clear delineation and =
articulation of moral common ground, and a shared framework of values =
that facilitates coherent and constructive deliberation and discourse. =
=85.Here is my best shot at it:
> =20
> How do we deploy and employ ICT to best enable protection and creation =
of genuine wealth for present and future generations?
> =20
> The objective is to clearly define a HOW that best enables us to =
function as communities and societies in realizing the immense potential =
of ICT for human development.=20
=20
But!!!  If that=92s the objective, then why not turn that into the =
question, instead of tugging our forelock in the direction of the feds =
and focusing the content of discussion towards wealth?  In as many =
different forums as possible, simply ask:
=20
What kind of a society do we want?  What best enables us to function as =
communities and societies in realizing the immense potential of ICTs for =
human development?

GG
=20
=20
=20=