Subject: Report on Workshop

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 19 May 1992 01:37:49 -0700

This is a quick summary of some of the major points covered in the workshop
at DIAC '92 on Community Access to Telecommunications.  It is a first cut
at listing the issues raised in the disscussion, and comes from my somewhat
scanty notes.  Comments and additions are encouraged and appreciated.  Items
are in no particular order.

Models - there are lots of different approaches in use for trying to make
    telecom more accessible.  The workshop covered public terminals,
    networked BBSs, and Minitel terminals in some detail, and touched on
    other technologies, particularly telephones and audio messaging.  It
    seemed to be true that no one technology was the best for all 
    applications.  (Open issues: what other models have been tried?  what
    are the particular strengths and weaknesses of each?  which ones have
    useful synergies?  are any particularly suited to addressing the
    traditional usership biases of telecom networks such as gender
    imbalances?)

Chicken & Egg - the problem of getting an on-line community going is common
    across different models.  A variety of promotional ideas and ideas for
    developing a core usership were touched on briefly.  (Open issues: how
    do different approaches work out in practice?  what are the advantages
    and disadvantages of leaning heavily on existing networks to get things
    moving?)

Chat Services - chat services formed an important attractive element of two 
    of the networks discussed.  There was some feeling that this type of 
    service was less serious or important somehow, but immediate feedback
    on some level tends to be critical to the success of community access
    systems.  (Open issues: are prejudices against chat just prejudices, or
    are there major limitations to the form?  Can other forms of communication
    benefit from more interactivity somehow?  Does the immediate nature of
    chat work against thoughtful dialogue?)

Partnerships - all of the services relied to some extent on partneships
    with community institutions to support their networks, provide
    information or services, or attract users.  (Open issues: what kinds of
    partnerships work best?  are there dangers involved in partnerships?
    what services and information are used by which users?)

Censorship - all of the services had given a lot of thought to censorship
    policies, and all had the basic goal of nurturing a diverse and open
    environment.  There were differences in the level of involvement and
    the details of policies.  There was a lot of interest in social controls,
    where the users set their own standards and enforce them through peer
    pressure.  (Open issues: what are the legal implications of various 
    policies?  what policies result in the optimum willingness of participants
    to speak out?  what is the current state of knowledge about social
    controls?)