The History of Networks in the Caribbean: 
souvenirs et vision partielles 
por parte de un actor de terreno.

Daniel Pimienta, Foundation Networks & Development (FUNREDES)
pimienta@funredes.org, http://funredes.org
Keynote Speech at ICA’s ICT Round Table,
Barbados, 29/10/2002

This is a multilingual document, mixing English, French, and Spanish.
Ce document mélange le français, l’espagnol et l’anglais.
Este documento tiene partes en castellano, inglés y francés.

LE CONTEXTE

As much differences as similarities and many division factors…
DIFFERENCES	SIMILARITIES	DIVISIONS	
Size of countries	Weather	Languages	
Size of populations	Cultural homogeneity	Insularity	
Political status	Colonial history	Geopolitical influences	
Economic development	Forced migrations from Africa	Economic 
(Tourism and Tropical goods)	
	Metissage		

Tantas diferencias como similaridades y muchos factores de división
DIFERENCIAS	SIMILARIDADES	DIVISIONES	
Tamaño de los países	Tiempo	Lenguajes	
Tamaño de las poblaciones	Homogeneidad Cultural	Insularidad	
Estatuto Político	Historia Colonial	Influencias Geopolíticas	
Desarrollo Económico	Migraciones Forzadas desde África	Económicas 
(Turismo y Productos Tropicales)	
	Mestisaje		

La région Caraïbes est en général définie comme une zone qui comprend 24 pays insulaires et 4 pays non insulaires qui maintiennent des liens étroits avec les îles des Caraïbes (Guyana,  Belize,  Suriname et la Guyane française). Les 28 pays représentent une population totale de 35 millions,  répartie sur une superficie totale de 727 000 km2.

 Les populations caraibiennes partagent dans une zone géographique et climatique commune, un contexte culturel complexe où les différences sont aussi importantes que les similarités. 

La relative homogénéité culturelle est le produit de plusieurs facteurs:
     - les conditions climatiques communes, 
     - les restes de l’héritage précolombien,
     - une histoire coloniale européenne (française, anglaise, espagnole et hollandaise), 
     - des migrations forcées venues d’Afrique,
     - des migrations naturelles d’autres régions (en particulier de l’Inde),
et le brassage relativement rapide (quoique variable) des différentes souches duquel a émergé le “métissage” propre à cette région.

Il y a toutefois de grandes différences entre les pays de la région:
- en ce qui concerne les superficies: de Guyana (215 000 km2) a Anguilla (91 km2).  Les 23 îles recouvrent seulement 235 000 km2 (dont 88% est partagé par les 4 îles les plus grandes:  Cuba, Hispaniola, la Jamaïque et Puerto Rico), tandis que les pays non insulaires recouvrent  492 000 km2.   
- en ce qui concerne la taille des populations: depuis Anguilla avec 8 000 habitants jusqu’à Cuba avec 12 millions.
- en ce qui concerne le statut politique: 16 pays indépendants, un territoire lié à la Hollande (Aruba, Curaçao, la partie hollandaise de Saint Martin,  St Eustache et Saba),  2 liés aux Etats-Unis d’Amérique (îles Vierges américaines et Puerto  Rico),  3 à la France (Martinique, Guadeloupe et Guyane), et 5 à l’Angleterre (îles Caïman,  Turk et Caicos, îles Vierges anglaise, Montserrat et Anguilla).
- en ce qui concerne le développement économique: depuis Haïti avec un PNB/hab. de 320 dollars jusqu’au Bahamas avec un PNB/hab. de 12 000 dollars.

  Les pays des Caraïbes sont également divisés par plusieurs facteurs:
- le facteur de dispersion géographique à l’intérieur du Bassin des Caraïbes
- le facteur linguistique: 3 blocs principaux (espagnol, anglais et français) plus le hollandais et les créoles.
- le facteur géopolitique: influence croisée des Etats-Unis et de pays Européens.
- le facteur économique:  les pays sont en concurrence sur les marchés de l’exportation de produits tropicaux et du tourisme, avec un manque de différenciation.

L’évolution mondiale qui voit émerger deux tendances opposées (le regroupement des régions dans des structures économiques communes et, en même temps, la pression des minorités culturelles pour être reconnues) est particulièrement critique dans cette région où le flux touristique augmente à la même vitesse que le volume de l’émigration. 

Voir en annexes 1 et 2, pour chaque pays, les indicateurs de base et le niveau de participation dans les schéma d’intégration existant (Lomé IV, CARICOM, OECS, CBI).

Pour tous les pays de cette région les perpectives de développement sont liées à une meilleur intégration économique, politique et culturelle.

Para todos los países de la región, las perpectivas de desarrollo están ligadas a una mejor integración economica, politica y cultural.

For all the countries of this region, the development perspectives are linked to a better economic, politic and cultural integration.

LES BARRIERES A L’INTEGRATION

OBSTACLES TO INTEGRATION
•	Linguistic differences
•	Limited mutual information
•	Limited movements of the scientific and cultural players
•	No organized mutual communication
•	Lack of common infostructures

OBSTACULOS A LA INTEGRACIÓN
•	Diferencias Lingüísticas
•	Información mutua limitada
•	Pocos movimientos de los actores de la ciencia y cultura
•	Falta de organización de la comunicación mútua
•	Necesidad de infoestructuras comunes

Les différences linguistiques sont évidemment une importante barrière mais des divisions existent à l’intérieur des zones linguistiques qui plaident pour l’identification d’un autre facteur. Au delà de la culture des Caraïbes et de sa relation particulière au temps, au delà des craintes de la concurrence régionale, il existe d’autres éléments qui rendent difficiles les actions communes. Il est notable, par exemple, que les organes de presse de chacun des pays concernés ne donnent aucune importance particulière aux informations régionales, la plus part des pays étant tourné exclusivement vers un des pays industriel qui a fait partie de son histoire coloniale. La connaissance mutuelle des activités culturelles, scientifiques et techniques est limitée et finalement les acteurs de la science et de la culture se déplacent assez peu à l’intérieur de la région. 

La barrière principale pour surmonter les résistances et le premier obstacle au processus d’intégration régional pourrait donc bien être la faiblesse d’une communication organisée, au niveau régional, entre les partenaires économiques, culturels, scientifiques et sociaux. 

C’est à partir d’une information partagée et d’une communication fluide que pourront être construit les schémas mentaux intégrationistes propices à la conception des actions dans les différents secteurs intéressés.

Es partiendo de una información compartida y de una comunicación fluida que podrán ser construidos les esquemas mentales integrationistas propicios a la elaboración de las acciones apropiadas para los diferentes sectores interesados.

>From a system of shared information and fluid communication it is possible to build the mental integration schemes favourable to the working out of actions in each area involved.

Pourtant, à la différence  d’autres régions,  la nature de la région rend le concept de frontière peu applicable, empêchant ainsi le mécanisme naturel qui permet aux pays voisins de créer, à partir du commerce frontalier, une culture d’échanges.

Il est d’ailleurs significatif que les moyens de transport aériens et maritimes montrent en général une topologie en étoile qui fait que la distance entre deux îles est égale aux diamètre du cercle (à l’exception des croisières touristiques où le touriste peut apprécier plus vite que l’habitant local la dualité diversité / points communs  de cette région).

Le diagnostic est donc clair: il manque une infrastructure de transport! Bien entendu la bonne approche n’est pas de construire des ponts ni nécessairement de reformer les système de transports aériens ou maritimes. Il s’agirait bien sûr des autoroutes de l’information ou inforoutes. Un premier niveau de diagnostic montre en effet que les causes ne sont pas dans les infrastructures mais bien dans les “infostructures”. 

La construction de systèmes d’information et de communication avec une vision régionale devrait avoir un effet considérable pour son développement et pourrait même à terme aider à l’amélioration des systèmes de transport entre les pays. 

Les technologies de l’information et communication apportent une occasion unique pour créer ou resserrer les liens entre les peuples des Caraïbes, les sensibiliser à leur identité commune culturelle et augmenter les incitations pour des actions communes. 

Information and Communication technologies provide a unique opportunity for the creation and tightening of links between the people of the Caribbean, heightening awareness of their common cultural identity and increasing motivation for common actions. 

Las tecnologías de la información y comunicación aportan una oportunidad única para crear o reforzar los lazos entre los pueblos del Caribe, sensibilizarlos a su identidad  cultural comun y mejorar las condiciones para emprender acciones comunes. 

La construction d’une infostructure, par sa nature, va au delà des couches de transport et de transmission des réseaux et se concentre principalement sur les aspects d’utilisateurs et de services. Il n’y a pas d’obstacles techniques aujourd’hui dans les Caraïbes à l’utilisation de l’Internet, en dehors des problèmes de zones mal desservies par la téléphonie traditionnelle. Par contre, il reste des problèmes d’équipements ou d’accès dans certains cas, de connaissance mutuelle des partenaires ou d’identification des ressources existantes dans la plus part des cas, un problème de formation à l’utilisation professionnelle des outils qu’il ne faut pas sous-estimer et, bien entendu la nécessité de mettre en pratique le pluri-linguisme dans des communautés virtuelles bien gérées.

En effet, la situation des langues dans la Caraïbe ne doit pas être sous-estimée :
- 25% du total des habitants ont l’anglais comme première langue, 75% l’espagnol ou le français.
- 70% des pays ont l’anglais comme langue officielle, 30% l’espagnol, le français ou le hollandais.
- Dans ce contexte, les Créoles représentent une langue d’intercompréhension pour une partie importante de la population.

However, the question of languages in the Caribbean should not be underestimated:
- 25% of the total population of the Caribbean is English speaking, 75% of the people speak Spanish or French.
- 70% of the countries of the Caribbean have English as the main language, 30% have Spanish, French or Dutch.
- In this context, Creole is a language of inter-comprehension for an important part of the population…

Sin embargo, la cuestión de las lenguas no debe ser subestimada:
- 25% de la populación del Caribe habla inglés, 75% habla español o francés.
- 70% de los países tienen el inglés como lengua oficial, 30% tienen el español, el francés o el holandés.
- Dentro de este contexto, las lenguas Creole representan una posibilidad de intercomprehensión para una parte importante de la población…

LA PREHISTORIA

Como preambulo a esta historia uno debe recordarse que el Caribe es una región que comparte una cultura fuertemente oral (y multimedia podriamos decir, para dar creditos a la riqueza de los colores y sonidos!). No hay que sorprenderse entonces de la resistencia al uso de textos escritos y en cierta medida a la exposición a la transparencia que provocan las redes…

Lo que sigue es una historia probablemente parcial contado desde el punto de vista de actores de terreno para quienes fueron vivencias; puede aparecer algo confusa, sin embargo, esta confusión  bien podria reflejar la situación del terreno…

A finales de los años 80’s, el proyecto REDALC de la Unión Latina, en colaboración la Unesco y con el apoyo de la Comisión Europea emprendo crear redes en el Caribe hispanófono (República Dominicana) y francófoco (Antillas francesas y Haití).  La estratégia pensada de enlazar el Caribe a Europa vía las Antillas francesas no prosperó. Utilizando una metodología apropiada probada con éxito en Perú (Red Científica Peruana, 1991), se constituyó en 1992 la red Dominicana de Intercambio para el Desarrollo (REDID). La idea era de lanzar simultaneamente las redes de Haití y Dominicana; sin enbargo la situación politica en Haití no permitio que sea posible.

En el 1993, a la raíz de contactos establecidos en reuniones regionales sobre el tema de redes en America Latina y el Caribe, el CENIAI de Cuba y Funredes tratarón de organizar una reunión sobre las redes del Caribe. La reunión finalmente no pudo realizarse y para capitalizar en la dinámica creada FUNREDES organizó en Santo Domingo una reunión dedicada a la creación de la red de Haití, la cual fue decisiva para el nacimiento de REHRED, Réseau Télématique Haitien pour la Recherche et le Développement. A la misma epoca la institución CRACIN constituye las bases de la red academica de Puerto Rico y se establecen contactos entre Cuba, Rep. Dominicana y Puerto Rico para coordinar esfuerzos de integración caribeña en el campo de las redes.

En el 1993, la OEA en paralelo a su proyecto de apoyo a las redes de America Latina que se inicio en el 1991 y se llamará posteriormente REDHUCYT, lanza el proyecto CUNET (Caribbean University Network)  de conexión de algunas universidades del Caribe mediante llamadas a la Universidad de Puerto Rico.  

Entre 1993 y 1995 las diferentes iniciativas se consolidan mal que bien dentro de un clima de dificultad de cooperación subregional y escasez de fondo. 

Así es que cuando la Internet comercial comienza su desarrollo en el Caribe las redes academicas y de la sociedad civil no han logrado llegar a niveles de autonomía equivalentes a los de la región latinoamericana. La gran mayoria de los dominios Internet de los países de la región tienen su gestión centralizada en Pueto Rico y conflictos aparecen en algunos casos a la ahora de organizar la gestión nacional de los dominios (casos de Rep. Dominicana y de Haití).

Esta parte inicial de la historia es un relate caótico de ocasiones perdidas y de frustraciones mezcladas con satisfacciones y logros, así como:
- Un conflicto entre CRACIN y la Universidad de Puerto Rico arruino las posibilidades que tenia Puerto Rico de jugar un papel clave y federador en las redes de la región;
- Las relaciones dificiles entre Funredes y la unidad de proyecto de la OEA que empujó Cunet fueron un freno a la integración del Caribe y al mismo tiempo dejaron sin apoyo las redes de Rep. Dominicana (REDID) y de Haití.
- La llegada de la Red de Desarrollo Sostenible del PNUD en la República Dominicana, en el 1995, marco el final de un periodo donde REDID habia participado con éxito al crecimiento de redes del Caribe en  igualidad de éxitos con las mejores redes de América latina. Por colmo de las paradojas, el PNUD destrozó la sostenibilidad de una red la mas sólida de la región … al nombre del desarrollo sostenible! Por suerte aprendió de sus errores y la historia del mismo proyecto en Haití ha sido mas harmoniosa.
- La red haitiana REHRED se mantuvó, aunque con dificultad por falta de apoyo, como una isla democrática en el medio de un oceano de dificultades politicas. Hoy día sigue existiendo pero no tiene la fuerza para organizar su sosteniblidad y se va debilitando a niveles peligrosos.
- La red dominicana REDID bajo su nuevo modelo de red de desarrollo sostenible se transformó en un fantasma… Otras redes como RUDAC empredieron la construcción de redes academicas en la República Dominicana.
- La red CUNET se mantuvo sin gran relevancia a nivel regional mientras la UWI consolidaba sus redes y apuntaba a la educación a distancia.

Al final de esta epoca complicada de pionieros, la UIT y la Unesco organizan una reunión en Barbados para el futuro de las redes del Caribe. A esta reunión cuyos resultados nunca fueron accesibles no participaron los actores de terreno!!! Eso motivo molestias y se expresaron en una nota que hoy en día sigue accesible en la Internet por haber sido capturada por el sistema de archivos de la Universidad de Hartrford y que colocamos en anexo III  como un documento histórico.

La historia no se repite exactamente!!! Hoy en día, 7 años mas tarde, en  el mismo país se reunen personas para debatir el tema de las TIC para el desarrollo, dentro de un concepto abierto, plural y participativo donde hay espacios para los gobiernos, el sector privado y la sociedad civil.

En horabuena! Pero el tema de las lenguas en el Caribe no es un detalle…

FUNREDES MORE RECENT ACTIONS IN THE CARIBBEAN

Obviously, in the second half of the 90’s and in the beginning of the following decade, the history of networks got more complex and the involvement of civil society became minor compared to that of business, regional organisations (such as Caricom or ACS)  and, more recently, governments. The following does not pretend to describe this history and will only focus on the history of an NGO which has been a pioneer in the South and in the Caribbean in focusing on ICT for development.

Acciones de Funredes en el Caribe: http://funredes.org/espanol/carpeta.php3/docid/369 
and  http://www.funredes.org/gopher/a/5/5.2/m31.html

Actions de Funredes dans la Caraïbe : http://funredes.org/francais/carpeta.php3/docid/369

CARITIN – 1993 - http://funredes.org/gopher/a/5/5.2/5.2.3/lb.html

Caribbean Integration through Information Network -
The project proposes to create, in each country, a national information network for the research and academic community (extensible to other sectors), with the following main focus: 
•	the creation of open, participative and pluralistic user groups, 
•	the systematic dissemination of the information services and preparation of users,
•	the systematic organization of electronic conferences and directories oriented toward regional objectives, 
•	the systematic organization of information bases oriented toward regional objectives.

The project was sent to the main players in the Caribbean. It did not get support or feed-back.

NEOSALSA - 1994:  http://funredes.org/gopher/a/5/5.2/5.2.4/m314.html
The plan was to add a component of language translation to the management of a discussion list about Caribbean culture. Support was not obtained.

TELESINERGIA – 1995 http://funredes.org/gopher/a/5/5.2/5.2.2/m312.html
The TELESINERGIA Project: Development of a Virtual Space for Dissemination of the Newer Information and Communication Technologies. This project gathered 25 partners to launch a large project aiming at the strengthening of the region in the ICT business area. This very ambitious project’s start was dependent on the support of the Bolivar Program, which was initially granted in the end was not forthcoming. This was a missed opportunity to create the condition for an early Caribbean ICT market.

MISTICA - From 1998 – http://funredes.org/mistica
Methodologies and Social Impact of ICT in Latin America and the Caribbean: a comprehensive project built around a human network and an information network. The alternative voice of Latin America and the Caribbean on the social vision of the Internet.
This is right now the master project of FUNREDES and has become a regional reference for research-action on the Information Society and a world-wide reference for methodologies for appropriate management of virtual communities. Despite strenuous efforts, the presence of the Caribbean is not at the expected level, especially regarding the English Speaking Caribbean. In the next stage, Funredes plans to invest further in order to motivate the participation of the Caribbean.

CARIBTIC – 1998-2000 http://funredes.org/caribtic
This is the adaptation of the CARITIN project to serve the objective of French Cooperation which supported the pilot phase of the project. A web site for defining concepts was put in place together with a discussion list for Caribbean culture including translation software of the Caribbean main languages. Unfortunately, the project remained at the pilot stage and the funding was not obtained. This remains a fair demonstration of what could be done, with the state of the art of 1998… 

SALSA – since 1999 http://www.funredes.org/salsa/
In collaboration with Kalalu and taking the opportunity opened by CARIBTIC, Funredes has put into effect the Neosalsa project conceived in 1994: a multilingual discussion list about the culture in the Caribbean beyond the boundaries of the Caribbean.

OLISTICA – From 2000 – http://funredes.org/olistica
Observatory of the Social Impact of ICT in Action: an alternative vision from the building of top-down and not socially concerned indicators for the Information Society. The project rests on and complements the MISTICA information and human networks. It is managed as a consortium of institutions coordinated by Funredes. The group is open to the participation of institutions from the English speaking Caribbean.

Since Caritin, Telesinergy and Neosalsa to Mistica/Olistica and Salsa, progress has been made: a better participation of the Caribbean in the Latin American initiatives and a better level of the realizations dedicated to the Caribbean. The progress has been quite slow in relation to needs but it does exist. Let’s be optimistic and wager that progress will accelerate after the ICT Round Table organized by ICA and ITU.

Depuis Caritin, Télésynergie et Néosalsa jusqu’à Mistica/Olistica et Salsa, le cheminement montre des progrès vers une meilleure participation de la Caraïbe dans les projets latinoaméricains et un meilleiur niveau de réalisation des projets consacrés à cette région. Les progrès sont bien lents par rapport aux nécessités mais ils sont patents. Soyons optimistes et parions que les progrès vont s’amplifier après la réunion «Tour de Table pour les TIC dans la Caraïbe» organisée par l’ICA et l ’UIT.

De Caritin, Telesinergia e Neosalsa hasta Mistica/Olistica y Salsa, el camino demuestra progresos y una mejor participación del Caribe en los proyectos latinoamericanos así como un mejor nivel de realización de los proyectos dedicados al Caribe. Los progresos son bastante lentos en comparación con las necesidades pero por lo menos existen. Seamos optimistas y apostamos que los propgresos van a ampliarse despues de la reunión “Mesa redonda TIC en el Caribe” organizada por el ICA y la UIT. 

CONCLUSION

Las promesas de las TIC son increiblemente importantes para esta región. Sin embargo, la historia ha sido muy dificil. Se requiere de una estrategia regional apropiada para relanzar de manera sistemática y eficiente un proceso de desarrollo integracionista apoyado en las TIC. Falta tambien reunir todas las areas linguisticas y politicas para no dejar a fuera países esenciales como pueden ser los Departamentos Franceses de America, Puerto Rico y Cuba. Esta reunión podria ser una etapa clave para ello.

Les promesses des TIC sont extrêmement importantes pour la région de la Caraîbe. L’histoire initiale a été cependant très difficile. Il faut une stratégie régionale pour relancer de manière systématique et efficace un processus de développement ayant l’ ; intégration en perspective qui soit appuyé par les TIC. Il faut aussi rassembler toutes les aires linguistiques et politiques pour ne pas laisser à l’ecart des zones aussi importantes que les DFA, Porto Rico et Cuba. Cette réunion pourrait être une étape clef pour cela.

ICT holds out wonderful promises for the development of the Caribbean region in spite the difficulties of the first historical period. An efficient regional strategy is required to re-launch a systematic process of integration development supported by ICT. It is also important to bring together all the linguistic and political areas in order to avoid leaving out areas as important as the French Antilles, Puerto Rico and Cuba. This meeting could be a milestone for that purpose.

ANNEXE 1: Indicateurs de base des pays des Caraïbes

(Source: Jean Marie Burgaud, 1995)
_________________________________________________________________
PAYS				STATUT 		  SUPERF.   POP.  PNB/ 	Taux
				POLITIQUE	  	    (KM2)	 (1990) Hab. 	Educ. 
									    	    	  
_________________________________________________________________    ANGUILLA           ROYAUME UNI (RU)      91     7000   na     na
ANTIGUA & BERMUDA  IND (RU,1981)        440    65000 4600     na
ANTILLES HOLLAND.  PAYS-BAS  	     740   175000   na     na
ARUBA              PAYS-BAS             250    61000   na     na
BAHAMAS            IND (RU,1973)      13940   247000 4900   4900    
BARBADES           IND (RU,1966)        430   255000 6540   5227 
BELIZE             IND (RU,1981)      22960   189000 1970     na
CAIMAN (ILES)      RU                   259    27000   na     na
CUBA               IND (SPAIN, 1898) 110860 10608000 2972    na
DOMINIQUE          IND (RU, 1978)       750    72000 1940     60
DOMINICAINE Rép.   IND (ESPAGNE,1844) 48444  7170000  820 123745
GRENADE            IND (RU,1981)        340    91000 2120    535 
GUADELOUPE         FRANCE              1779   390000   na     na 
GUYANA             IND (RU, 1966)    214970   796000  370   2328
GUYANE		    FRANCE             91000    98000   na     na
HAITI              IND (FRANCE, 1804) 28000  6486000  370   6829
JAMAIQUE           IND (RU, 1962)     10990  2420000 1510  12504
MARTINIQUE         FRANCE              1101   360000   na     na
MONTSERRAT         RU                   100    11000   na     na
PUERTO RICO        EUA                 9104  3530000   na     na
ST KITTS & NEVIS   IND (RU, 1983)       270    42000 3340    167
STE LUCIE          IND (RU, 1979)       620   133000 1900    367
ST VINCENT         IND (RU, 1979)       340   107000 1610    736
SURINAME           IND (PAYS-BAS 75) 163265   422000 3050   3402
TRINIDAD & TOBAGO  IND (RU, 1962)      5130  1236000 3470   4939
TURKS & CAICOS     RU                   430    12000   na     na
VIERGES ANGLAISES  RU                   150    16000   na     na
VIERGES AMERIC.    EUA                  344   107000   na     na
_______________________________________________________________________
    
ANNEXE 2: Participation des pays des Caraïbes dans les systèmes 		  d’intégration 

(Source: Jean Marie Burgaud, 1995)

__________________________________________________________________
                   LOME IV  TERRITOIRE OCT CARICOM  OECS   CBI
                     (UE)       UE    (UE)
__________________________________________________________________
ANGUILLA                                *
ANTIGUA & BERMUDA     *                        *      *      *     
ARUBA                                   *
BAHAMAS               *                        *             *        
BARBADES              *                        *             *        
BELIZE                *                        *             *        
CAIMAN (ILES)                           *
CUBA               
DOMINIQUE             *                        *      *      *        
DOMINICAINE Rép.      *                     observ.          *
GRENADE               *                        *      *      *        
GUADELOUPE                      *
GUYANA                *                        *             *        
GUYANE                          *
HAITI                 *                     observ.          *
JAMAIQUE              *                        *             *        
MARTINIQUE                      *
MONTSERRAT                              *             *      *
ANTILLES HOLLAND.                       *                    *
PUERTO RICO                                               associé 
ST KITTS & NEVIS      *                        *      *      *   
STE LUCIE             *                        *      *      *   
ST VINCENT            *                        *      *      *   
SURINAME              *
TRINIDAD & TOBAGO     *                        *             *
TURKS & CAICOS                          * 
VIERGES ANGLAISES(ILES)     	  		       *
VIERGES AMERICAINES(ILES)                                 associé  _______________________________________________________________________

ANNEX 3 : NOTE ON CARIBBEAN NETWORKING (June 1995)

http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/43/026.html

Date: Mon, 12 Jun 1995 12:01:18 EST
From: "Pimienta Daniel " <pimienta!daniel@redid.org.do>
Subject: More info on Caribbean Networking 
Dear colleagues,
FUNREDES is completing the information you have taken the initiative to publish in your gopher about networking in the Caribbean. Please, feel free to update your information base with this note (or with selected parts of it).
GOPHER.PSG.COM
First of all, let us congratulate you for the useful and comprehensive work you are realizing in collecting data on networks in Developing Countries. Only recently, thanks to the first Internet full connection in the Dominican Republic (see note 1), have we been able to visit, browse and enjoy it. 
We also want to thank you for presenting, in your gopher, information about our organization (FUNREDES) and REDID (the Dominican research network). We sincerely appreciate this contribution in defence of pluralism. 
The conditions are (at last!) present for the creation of REDID and FUNREDES.ORG internet nodes and subsequent gophers and webs (see note 2). It will take an estimated 4 months to get them in operation. We will then inform you and we could proceed to organize the required linkages. 
As for Haiti (REHRED), I am afraid it will take an additional 3 months to get there (see note 3). Meanwhile, we will try to provide you with more accurate and up to date information.
CARIBBEAN NETWORK TRAFFIC FIGURES
In our last trip, we discovered, with a tremendous interest (we have been so eager to get them for years!), the CUNET traffic figures.
The report of CUNET is misleading when it presents the .DO figures. It should be specified that these figures are limited to PUCMM.EDU.DO (the CUNET component of Dominican Rep.) and that they do not include REDID.ORG/EDU.DO. 
As you may know, the .DO domain, still under management in Puerto Rico, is shared by the two networks. With the imminent creation of, at least, two more Internet commercial providers (in fierce competition) and the migration of REDID to the Internet, the managing of the .DO by a Dominican entity is soon becoming a priority. This is a touchy issue, requiring fair consultation between the entities involved. FUNREDES is taking actions to initiate and smooth the process.
As for the correspondent traffic and user figures for REDID.DO, they are shown in note 4 and 5.
You will notice that REDID ALONE represents as much traffic as the ENTIRE CUNET (including the CUNET .DO component)
To enhance the Caribbean perspective it will be worth having more data, in particular the corresponding Jamaican and Cuban figures. For Cuba, I hope the CENIAI Director can show the figures. For Jamaica, I hope the people of University of West Indies could provide corresponding figures.
COMMENTING ON THE FIGURES
In the persistent lack of user directories (or total user numbers) from CUNET, these figures are the closest way we got for approximation of the numbers of users in CUNET (see note 6). For those interested in methodology evaluation matters, they offer the most reliable indication, 3 years after the parallel start of REDID and CUNET. REDID was designed with the "REDALC methodology" (see note 7) which focuses in building the user base and institutions and relies in partnership with telecom operators (the Codetel company have been helpfully supporting the entire international and national telecommunication costs of REDID, since may 1992). 
WHAT IS AT STAKE BEHIND THE FACTS?
The point is hardly to compare projects in terms of methodology vs. results. The question about which project is doing better; is secondary. The real issue is, independently, how and with what project is it possible TO GET MORE PEOPLE USING THE NETWORK IN THE CARIBBEAN RESEARCH COMMUNITY.
The installed base of CUNET is a lot better than nothing, but let's be fair: it is not enough. The traffic figures alone speak for themselves (and networking is much more than traffic). 
The critical point is that, as an undesirable side effect of the excellent marketing of CUNET, funding agencies tend to consider that the RESEARCH NETWORKS PROBLEM IS SOLVED IN THE CARIBBEAN.
Unfortunately, THIS IS JUST NOT TRUE, although it does lead to DRAWING AWAY the badly needed SUPPORT, that otherwise would have been available for around here.
A CRUDE DIAGNOSTIC OF CARIBBEAN NETWORKING
This issue calls for prompt action. It begins by recognizing the real, objective situation. The rest should follow naturally, namely the assignment of the required resources, with participation of the key players in this field. The Caribbean is not another northern district (indeed it is not quite Latin America either), it has proved to hold a delicate mixture of values demanding a tactful approach. 
There’s still a long way to Caribbean integration, even in the cyber-Caribbean. . .
FUNREDES have repeatedly insisted that a "user connectivity" component was still missing to facilitate the research and academic users growth and institutionalization (as it is tried, for instance in Cuba and the Dominican Republic). By "user connectivity" (instead of "physical connectivity") we mean a comprehensive set of actions, from decision makers sensitization, user training, user group forming, to the production and organization of national and regional information base; the reinforcing of the level of institution and the technology transfer being the key criteria of success, besides the number of real and satisfied users.
FUNREDES have been unsuccessful so far in conveying this message to those interested in the Caribbean and susceptible to support actions. As a matter of fact:
1.	REDID received no further support after 1993, and its operation and growth have been, as a consequence, seriously affected in the period mid-1994 to mid-1995, with a total traffic decrease. With a total investment of say 75,000 US$, REDID would have turned today more than 70% of the targeted researchers into real users (instead of 25%). This is less than the cost of standing a regional meeting for making decision about what to do to solve the very problem of the Dominican network :-(. 
2.	FUNREDES, although a consistently active and productive field player in the Caribbean, since 1988 (see note 8), has never been called to participate in the consultative or decision regional meetings on Caribbean networks, and, furthermore, is totally absent from the list of funded NGOs in that region and in that field. It is ironic and sad to confess than FUNREDES, a non profit field oriented organization, have more success getting support from private companies than from the "funding" agencies... 
CONCLUSION
If the grass-roots people are going to disappear, because of the lack of support, who will implement the fine strategies discussed in the regional meetings where several international functionaries gathered from all over the world to decide the future of other people who are not even involved in the process?
How about a 10% "field tax" collect on these meetings to go to the people who are doing the job, back in the field? That will probably be enough to maintain the field organizations alive without preventing these meetings to happen…
One can expect that the simple realization of these figures will give some matter for reflection to the funding agencies about the productivity of their investments and about the real importance and productivity of those who are struggling in the field, with reduced support, to keep grass-roots efforts going on.
How about a fair and constructive vision of Caribbean Networking?
Best regards from the Dominican Republic,
Daniel Pimienta and colleagues from Foundation Networks and Development (FUNREDES)
PO BOX 2972- Santo Domingo
Dominican Republic
Santo Domingo
tel: + 1 809 535 2422
fax: 535 6646 
pimienta!daniel@redid.org.do
pimienta@aacr.us.net
NOTE 1: INTERNET IN THE DOMINICAN REP.
May 4th, the private company AACR announced the start of its service and its willingness to cooperate for totally free access to REDID members. This was reported in KISKEYA and SALSA lists. The two other telecom operators CODETEL and TRICOM are about to market their respective services (and, hopefully, complementary or alternative offers to REDID).
NOTE 2: FUNREDES AND REDID INTERNET NODES
•	FUNREDES obtained, as a donation from SUN Corp., two Sparc Servers which will provide for the two respective nodes. 
•	AACR offered, free of charge, the Internet connectivity via its own infrastructure, for both nodes. 
•	CID (a British cooperation agency) is going to take care of the cost of the person to drive the technical efforts for both nodes. 
•	FUNREDES is in the process of recruiting this Unix/Internet skilled person to move along. 
NOTE 3: HAITI NETWORK UPDATE
•	REHRED is still waiting funds for its technical connectivity setup (here again, the request was around 75,000 US$, and time is passing!). 
•	REHRED steering committee is keeping on the work for the institutional and organizational layers. More people/institutions are getting involved in the process (meanwhile, most are using the commercial e-mail service available -ACN- as standard customers). 
•	Christian Aid is supporting a part of the FUNREDES effort to assist REHRED; Senaida Jansen is about to go on a mission to help the coordination group and FUNREDES is committed to a training effort to be held last trimester 95. 
NOTE 4: REDID TRAFFIC DATA
These results are obtained from partial data collected from both the codemail node and the UPR2 node. We are in the process of completing the data and cross-checking the results. Meanwhile, one can use the average figures since there are strong and relatively stable patterns.
Stable observed patterns (period from 10/94 to 5/95):
•	Percentage of REDID in-bound messages: 50% 
•	Percentage of out-bound messages: 50%
o	Of which, incoming: 80% 
o	Of which, outgoing: 20%
•	AVG DAILY External incoming (from Internet to REDID) = .8 Mbytes 
•	AVG DAILY External outgoing (from REDID to Internet) = .2 Mbytes 
•	AVG DAILY Internal (from REDID to REDID) = 1.0 Mbytes 

•	AVG DAILY Total = 2.0 Mbytes 
Which makes the 30x2. = 60 Mbytes monthly figure we used.
NOTE 5: REDID USER FIGURES
REDID publishes on a regular basis its user listing. After the difficult period of 1994/95, in terms of user support and installation (as a consequence from the absence of external support), REDID is in the process of reinforcing its operation (with the cooperation of FUNREDES) and  updating the listing. There are now some 120 end-users from 60 member institutions (not all of them having "real users"). The growth factor which has been relatively stable, between 1 and 2 new institutions per month, should climb now to an estimated 3 to 6 with the improvement of the operation and the strong Internet media attention in the country.
The number of users per institutions varies from one unit to a maximum of 26 and 16, respectively for UNDP and PUCMM in Santiago (among the rare institutions having been capable to organize the REDID access via LAN). The NGOs are the most active users of REDID. Although connections are organized in several universities, the systematic in-networking of the Dominican universities is still a pending item in the national agenda (this issue escapes from REDID responsibility). Besides REDID and CUNET/PUCMM.DO, several BBS initiatives (as in INTEC) are trying to fill the gap, still open, for the students connectivity. 
NOTE 6: CUNET USER FIGURES EXTRAPOLATION
If one uses, as a projection factor, the ratio "data volume/user" of REDID (during the period 10/94 to 4/95) and backup it with some traffic assumptions, it is possible to guess some user figures for CUNET. Obviously, this is just an extrapolation, provided for the sake of comparison, and should be treated then as such. I hope that Cunet node administrators will correct the extrapolated figures and publish the real ones (together with the associated directories, so as to facilitate the in-Caribbean communication). 
Traffic assumptions:
•	Average data exchange volume per user per day= 16 Kbytes
(which represents an average 4 messages of an average 4Kbytes).
This comes from the simple scheme:
•	1/2 infrequent users (few msg. per week) Avg. daily= 4 Kbytes 
•	1/4 average users (few msg. per day) Avg. daily= 12 Kbytes 
•	1/4 frequent users (few tenth of msg.per day) Avg.= 44 Kbytes
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
•	Total average = 16 Kbytes
Which makes an average .5 Mbytes per user per month.
The variance is obviously very high, and the extrapolation process is uncertain where the user figures is very low, as in most Cunet nodes (one single active user may generate as much as 20 times more Bytes than a slow one!).
It is worth noting that:
•	The monthly figure obtained does correspond to the REDID collected data. 
•	Subscribed persons without an email address defined or with a null traffic email address are NOT considered users until they start to effectively use the services. 
•	Some network administrators are not respecting this obvious rule, confusing administrative paperwork with electronic communication, and this is why, in the absence of homogenous data, the traffic volume is the most relevant parameter for the evaluation of the state of a network.
For the CUNET node, the average of the published data has been used.
USER COMPARISON TABLE
                  ISO-CODE AVG MBytes  PROJ.  POPULATION  
   COUNTRY           COUNTRY  Per Month   USERS  (MILLION)
   
   Antigua and Bermuda AG     1.06         2       .07                  
   Bahamas             BS     4.15         8       .25  
   Barbados            BB     8.59        17       .26       
   Belize              BZ    13.74        28       .19       
   Dominican Rep CUNET DO     3.62         7      7.00     
***Dominican Rep REDID DO    60.00       120      7.00       
   Grenada             GR     0.63         1       .10   
   Guyana              GY     0.10         1       .80 
   St. Lucia           LC    11.72        24       .14          
   Vincent and Gren.   VC     0.79         2       .11
   Suriname            SR     2.29         5       .42
   Trinidad/Tobago     TT    17.14        34      1.30      
_________________________________________________________    
TOTAL CUNET                  66.92       129      10.64
TOTAL REDID                  60.00       120       7.00
Note: If one takes into account the size of the population, some CUNET nodes (such as St Lucia and Belize) hold notable figures in terms of market penetration. It will be worth studying what factors have produced those interesting results.
NOTE 7: REDALC METHODOLOGY REFERENCE
•	"Crear redes de investigadores en paises en desarrollo es otra historia", FUNREDES, 7/92 
•	"Research Networks in Developing Countries: Not exactly the same Story!", Proceeding of INET93, San Francisco, 8/93, FAB1-11 Stored in GNET electronic archive (FTP directory "global_net", file "research_net_guide.txt)) 
•	"REDALC Methodology", Matrix News, 9/93 (shorter version) 
The Chapter V ("A private hot tub vs. a public swimming pool") is particularly relevant to the point we are making, as it tries to show, in a humoristic fashion, that: "Building a network has much to do with the gathering of people under a common and structures organizational scheme than installing hardware and software."
NOTE 8: LIST OF FUNREDES ACTIONS IN THE CARIBBEAN
1.	REDALC WORKSHOP, Santo Domingo, 8/91: REDALC (Red de America Latina y el Caribe) is a project of Union Latina, funded by the European Union and with the participation of Unesco and Funredes. The feasibility study of the project established the methodological framework for all the subsequent actions of the group. The partners will publish, by the end of the year, a comprehensive document about LA&C networking. There is no plan for execution though.
The REDALC Workshop, with official guests from Dominican Rep., Haiti, Cuba and Puerto Rico had a strong Caribbean component and served as genesis for the launching of the Peruvian, Dominican and Haitian networks.
STATUS= Executed.
2.	IMPACT STUDY OF NETWORKS IN ANTILLES FRANCAISES, with Conseil Regional on European Union budget.
STATUS= Completed, June 92. 
3.	REDID, May 92-May 95: successively, PTT negotiation, launch, operation, technology transfer, technical assistance for the Dominican research network.
STATUS=well and alive, migration to Internet on the way. 
4.	REDID USER WORKSHOP, July 92: the first organized effort in the region to provide comprehensive and massive USER TRAINING (some 100 people attended this effort sponsored by European Union, co-organized with Unesco/Cresalc which allow the gathering of several key people in that field).
STATUS= Executed and documented. 
5.	CARIBBEAN NETWORKS FIRST REGIONAL WORKSHOP, May 93: the first project for the meeting of all Caribbean networks field actors, organized by the Cuban, Venezuelan and Dominican people.
STATUS= Last week cancelled because of lack of funding, never reorganized for the same reason. 
Numerous meetings about networking have been organized later in the Caribbean; none with the presence of the principal field actors. Each year since 1991, a regional meeting has been organized for LA&C networks, the absence of representation of the majority of the Caribbean networks is unfortunately the norm. 
6.	REHRED WORKSHOPS, May 93: the first step towards the Haitian network.
STATUS= Executed and documented 
7.	REHRED, may 93-may 95: the process for creation of the Haitian research network, difficult but stubborn move, in spite of the political turmoil and the persistent lack of funding (is that not surprising?).
STATUS=On the move but badly needs funding. 
8.	KISKEYA@CONICIT.VE, mid-93; listserv for Dominican Rep. researchers (150 subscribed).
STATUS= (average) ACTIVE 
9.	SALSA@CONICIT.VE, mid-93: Listserv for the Caribbean (170 subscribers).
STATUS= (slow) ACTIVE 
10.	HAITI-L@CONICIT.VE, mid 93: Listserv for Haitian researchers (140 subscribers).
STATUS= (quite) ACTIVE 
11.	SALSA-TRAN, beg. 94: Project to provide automatic language translation in the SALSA listserv so that to facilitate in-Caribbean communication.
STATUS= Waiting for funding. 
12.	NEO-LISTSERV, 10/93: Project to enhance the management of our listservs with the coupling of an electronic archive and the creation of reference notes by an information specialist.
STATUS= Waiting for funding. 
13.	CARITIN (Caribbean Integration Through Information Network), 10/93: a comprehensive project for adding user connectivity and contents in the Caribbean networks.
STATUS= Waiting for funding (and also for feed-back).
Note: If PSG.COM wish so we could provide a copy to be stored. 
14.	SAMANA: a project to gather a brain force (in Samana, Dominican Republic) to overlook the impact of the Internet in the South.
STATUS= Defined, waiting for funding. 
15.	TELESINERGIA: a project defined to coordinate mixed joint-ventures in the Caribbean Basin for the constitution of a competitive force to target the information market. Twenty-one Caribbean related institutions have signed formal agreements to cooperate with TELESINERGIA. Taking into account the Internet evolution toward a commercial media and in answer to the NGOs funding crisis, FUNREDES have conceived its new strategic project and an original contribution to the above mentioned evolution.
STATUS= Fund hunting expected soon thanks to Bolivar Program's "Enlace" mechanism. 
16.	CARIBBEAN RIGHTS NETWORKING and TEACHING: Funredes has been requested, by Huridocs and Caribbean Rights, to help Caribbean Human Rights Branches their way to networking. Action made locally, end of 94, in Barbados (helping the branch connection to Cunet and training) and in Haiti. Actions to start for remote coordination with Cunet administrators now. Regional action planned last trimester in Santo Domingo for user training.
STATUS= ON ITS WAY. 
17.	GENDER AND NETWORKS IN THE CARIBBEAN: 
STATUS= DEFINITION STAGE 
18.	COMPUTER MEDIATED EDUCATION FOR CARIBBEAN INTEGRAL DEVELOPMENT: In partnership with ADEP-Martinique (Association pour le Developpement de la Pedagogie) and UAG (Universite Antilles-Guyane), this project targets the valorization of cultural, linguistic, social and touristic assets of the Caribbean, by the use of new information technologies.
STATUS= DEFINITION STAGE 
19.	TRAINING AND FORMING VIRTUAL COMMUNITY: Assistance from FUNREDES to ENDA-CARIBE for networking activities in the Caribbean.
STATUS=ON-GOING 
20.	FUNREDES INTERNET NODE AND WEB (with a clear Caribbean orientation)
STATUS=STARTING NOW