http://funredes.org/mistica

MISTICA: Fwd: Portal Banco Mundial

From: Coordinacion Mistica ([email protected])
Date: Fri Sep 15 2000 - 09:06:52 AST

Este correo enviado por el colega Scott Robinson en la lista
hermana "telecentros" merece toda la atenci�n de nuestra CV.
Se trata de un mega-proyecto del Banco Mundial para ofrecer
un portal sobre la tematica del desarrollo, llamado "global gateway".

Reacciones?

Nuestra primera reacci�n es que todos los esfuerzos centralizadores en el
campo de las TIC son, por dise�o, sospechosos.

�Porque no dejan la diversidad y pluralidad de actores de la
sociedad civil cumplir con sus tareas, o mejor aun, reparten
los 60 millones de US$ a las iniciativas de terreno que han
demostrado capacidad?

La coordinaci�n,

PS: Funredes est� en la b�squeda de fondos para poder mantener
el esfuerzo Mistica a la misma altura (a lado de lo que deberia
ser el Observatorio Latino Americano del Impacto Social de las
TIC en Acci�n que deber�a apoyar el CIID).

>Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 12:57:32 -0600
>From: ssr <[email protected]>
>To: [email protected], [email protected]
>
>Colegas,
>
>Una llamada para avalar una carta al comandante Wolfensohn, Banco Mundial,
>manifestando reservas sobre el proyecto del portal para el desarrollo.
>
>Scott Robinson
>
>****************************************************
>
>OPEN LETTER ON WORLD BANK INTERNET PLANS
>
>Below is an open letter to World Bank President Wolfensohn explaining the
>concerns of many researchers and NGOs about the Bank's plans to develop a
>major (60 million dollars over 3 years) internet initiative, supposedly
>involving civil society as a key partner.
>
>The World Bank is planning a major sales pitch for its Gateway plans at
>its Prague Annual Meetings starting next week. The Bank's Gateway team is
>claiming that just a few European malcontents still have problems with the
>plans and so the Bank should move full steam ahead. If civil society
>groups worldwide do not express their reservations/opposition clearly now,
>the Gateway is likely to eclipse the independent web initiatives many ofus
>are involved in.
>
>Undoubtedly some would phrase this stronger and some slightly weaker, this
>aims to be quite neutrally-phrased to get a good, quick, range of
>signatures.
>
>** Please sign by the afternoon of Tuesday 19 September. Send signatures
>(with name and affiliated organisation, where appropriate) to:
><[email protected]> Please forward to others who might sign, too. Apologies
>if you receive this more than once. The final letter, plus signatories,
>will be posted on the Bretton Woods Project website next week and
>circulated at the Prague meetings.**
>
>FURTHER INFO/LINKS
>For official information about the Gateway plans, see:
>www.worldbank.org/gateway
>For a civil society discussion on the Gateway (where many of the letter's
>points are discussed), see: www.bellanet.org/gdgprinciples Throughout
>October the Bank will hold an electronic consultation on the Gateway on:
>www.worldbank.org/devforum
>
>Alex Wilks, Bretton Woods Project, UK
>[The Bretton Woods Project works with NGOs and researchers to monitor the
>World Bank and IMF. See: www.brettonwoodsproject.org]
>
>Open joint letter of concern about the Global Development Gateway
>
>19 September 2000
>
>Dear Mr Wolfensohn,
>
>The Bank, under your direction, is developing a major new internet
>initiative which aims to become "the premier web entry point for
>information about poverty and sustainable development". To achieve this it
>would need to include all shades of opinion and be a broad,
>multi-stakeholder initiative, including civil society. Many civil society
>groups, including the undersigned, have held discussions with the Bank and
>among themselves about the Gateway.
>
>We are writing to inform you that many of the major issues we have raised
>have not been addressed. It seems, especially from the report "Global
>Development Gateway Issues Identified During Consultations" recently
>produced by the Bank's Gateway team, that you and the Bank's Board may
>have been misinformed about the extent and nature of civil society
>concerns and our disappointment in the Bank's response.
>
>These concerns are not only serious in how they relate to the missed
>opportunity of the Gateway, but also because they have the potential to
>confuse potential funders, people asked to be Topic Guides, site visitors,
>and many others. It is not the case that, as hinted in the above report of
>the consultations, that these views are only held by opponents of the
>World Bank or groups based in Europe. In fact a wide range of NGOs,
>academics and also officials are extremely sceptical about the initiative.
>
>Among the key problems identified with the Bank's Gateway plans are:
>
>1) insufficient independence of Gateway governance.
>The Gateway global and national governance structures do not adequately
>protect civil society interests. Whilst an independent foundation has been
>established, the constitution of the Board and Advisory Committee do not
>give grounds for confidence that the Gateway will be truly independent of
>the Bank, national governments and big business. Particular concerns are
>the role of the Bank in making appointments relating to the Global
>Gateway, governments' leading roles in Country Gateways and companies's
>ability to buy Gateway Board membership (and "co-branding" opportunities)
>with annual payments of a million dollars. Creating a nominally
>independent entity has thus not solved the acute accountability issues
>around the Gateway, issues which are very sensitive in portal development,
>essentially an editorial activity similar to publishing newspapers.
>
>2) alternative design options rejected.
>Very early in discussions about the Gateway a number of civil society
>groups suggested an alternative design approach which would use the latest
>spidering software to allow distributed, user-driven topic aggregation.
>This would overcome the difficulties of the chosen Gateway design which
>gives power and impossible judgements to individual editors, and empower
>groups across the world to post and group information according to their
>needs. Yet the Gateway still favours a vertical, edited approach which
>will cause many problems of credibility and useability.
>
>3) communication/consultation insufficient.
>Whilst there have been a number of consultation exercises, it appears that
>the Bank has overemphasised the production of pilot sites and fundraising
>rather than communicating with diverse audiences about the GDG's
>intentions and what might best meet their needs. Many important groups
>still know nothing about the Gateway and many who do have tabled questions
>which have not been answered.
>
>4) overambition and unfair competition;
>The Gateway, whilst based on good intentions to increase coordination of
>web activity, is too ambitious and cannot meet all of its goals. At the
>same time its huge budget (60 million dollars over three years) and
>marketing reach are likely to have huge opportunity costs for the many
>existing and planned portal ventures in this area. It is not appropriate
>for the heavily subsidized Gateway to compete with these (for profit and
>non-profit) initiatives, including in many of the "pilot" countries. This
>approach clearly contradicts normal World Bank policy advice.
>
>At present, because of the above concerns and others, it is unlikely that
>a Civil Society Committee for the Gateway will be formed soon, despite two
>months of discussion about it. In fact a large number of civil society
>groups are likely to continue with independent initiatives to improve
>electronic information coordination rather than join the Gateway.
>
>We ask you to provide full responses to the above points as soon as
>possible.
>
>Yours sincerely,
>
>INITIAL SIGNATORIES
>Alex Wilks, Bretton Woods Project, UK
>
>Lawrence Surendra, environmental economist, India, formerly Director,
>Asian Regional Exchange for New Alternatives
>
>Roberto Bissio, Executive Director, Third World Institute, Uruguay
>
>Mark Lynas, UK Editor, Oneworld.net
>
>OTHER SIGNATORIES (e-mail name, position and organisation to:
><[email protected]>. Note organisation is for identification purposes only,
>not implying an organisational view. Reply by Tues 19th September.)
>
>** CHANGE OF ADDRESS, PHONE AND FAX NUMBERS **
>____________________________________________________________
>The Bretton Woods Project works on World Bank and IMF issues
>with a network of UK non-government organisations.
>
> >> NEW CONTACT DETAILS <<:
> >From 18th July, 2000 the Project is moving to:
>c/o Action Aid, Hamlyn House, Macdonald Road,
>Archway, London N19 5PG
>Tel: + 44 (0)20 7561-7546,
>Fax: + 44 (0)20 7281 5146
>Main e-mail (still): [email protected]
>
> >> SUBSCRIBE ONLINE <<
>Bretton Woods Update, a digest of information and action on World Bank and
>IMF issues (6 issues per year): www.brettonwoodsproject.org/sub.html
>_______________________________________________
>telecentros mailing list
>[email protected]
>http://tele-centros.org/mailman/listinfo/telecentros

Este archivo fue generado por hypermail 2b29 : Wed Feb 28 2001 - 01:01:27 AST