BRAINSTORM SESSION AND GROUP DISCUSSIONS

GROUP DISCUSSIONS

[Robert Hayes]

Due to the time pressure, we should move fast and break up into three or four groups.

In terms of who goes into which group, I am going to be fascinated to see how you make the decision. We are not going to assign that. You are going to assign yourself. We do, however, hope that in the more or less random process that will occur there will be a good mix of U.S. and non-U.S. people, public and private interest, and the like. So please find your appropriate niches. The only other thing the I'd like to mention is that during the breakfast where the majority of the discussion might fall, it was suggested by Linda that one of the ways to do so would be to identify those things that obviously can be done very soon versus those that would take years and decades; that might be an initial focus. A second possible division would be between those of which there is fundamental agree-ment, that we can agree and identify with rapidly versus those of which there is disagreement. We can then rapidly identify those in agreement and get that out of the way so that we will focus on those who disagree. Because the documents that come out ought to be documents that each person can use for his or her own agenda, and/or can go away with something valuable for all of us.
 
 
 
 

10____________________

BRAINSTORM SESSION AND GROUP DISCUSSIONS

DISCUSSION REPORT: GROUP 1

Reported by: Marjorie M. K. Hlave

My guess is that three discussion groups will come up very different kinds of reports. So let me tell you what we did in our discussion process. We took the six generic topics from yesterday and divided our time into 10 to 15 minutes so that we could cover all six in an hour, and we discussed them in the order presented by Bob yesterday. We also asked for input from each member of our group. (I recall that each took a stand for each of those six topics. After the initial presentation by the member, then we would debate their strengths for each model.) Let me see if I can report to you the ideas that came out from our group.

The first topic was from a political and economic context. We debated first the concept -- information is knowledge. If information is to become knowledge, then it must be shared. It is not knowledge until it is shared. Then we talked about the economic part of the creation of information and thought about that context as the public would. It should be a basic infrastructure resource, and the public funding should pay for its basic version. However, it should be possible for private businesses to enhance that information.

We talked more about basic research by government and whether there should be more in the private sector industry. We needed a balance between the govern-ment and the private sector, and never got too far to one end of the spectrum or the other. We have to convince the government the value of information. We talked about the models -- more or less technology transfer model -- using those information value models. It should be part of the educational system, part of the package. We talked about whether we should copy it or whether each national agency should copy it to make it available, while it already exists someplace else. And then we had a lot of talk about client/server, applications and collections on the worldwide network, of course represented at the moment by the Internet. We have all the collection available in the native tongue of the local group, and wonder how to convert these collections to a world "brain" collection?

Having talked about all these, we realized that that was really the how, we really needed to talk about why as well. So we talked about investment in the educational system. And when you have a single text in a classroom for ideolo-gical reasons, you only have one point of view -- finding reasons. It is a lot cheaper to buy a single textbook for historical reasons which have become part of the past. Now editing and revising can be done so quickly, you could have a comprehensive text, presented in multiple sets, as in a single volume.

Some talked about elementary education and legislation as a local issue, not as a national issue, because it needs to be locally defined. And that was the topic we did not come to a consensus.

Then we moved to tenure at universities and how a revolution is about to take place. It is not likely to continue as it is, and our topic was of contract personnel at universities rather than the tenure system that we have now. We discussed whether faculty could be rewarded in different ways.

We then moved to the appropriate agency of transition and discussed how to move from non-production information system to a basic and more sophisticated one. We, the NIT, will be the best group to do that. I think that we can agree that if we have means to lift up the population's educational levels, then we could free them from political changes in time. For that we shall need to have financial support from non-governmental organizations. Staff are needed to carry it these plans, but it was pointed out quite strongly that there is a real problem with these organizations in many developing countries, because once the new government is in power, the financial support to the group may be withdrawn just at the crucial time. Our colleague in South Africa presented instance where that could be a real problem.

We did some talking about whether we should talk about GII and global infor-mation content, because with GII, we are talking about hardware and software, but only hardware and software will not solve problems. We need to think about the content and think about the content on a local basis, because users and their needs are local.

We then talked about the language as part of the infrastructure. Information policy of Japan just after World War II was discussed. Japanese came to New York to take away an incredible amount of basic information to Japan to apply as knowledge. That was a cornerstone in the Marshall Plan as it was a very impor-tant part of how that country was able to spring forward to where they are today.

Once society understands there is a clear idea of the value of information, it needs to deal with issues related to the topics. We thought a professional society should point out the value to provide a guiding light for the policy makers. The library can be used as an agency for the exchange of content of the knowledge that we deal with.

Then we moved to information with Mario from Puerto Rico as the person leading us on this topic on three parts of the structure: First, public campaigns, like for drugs, indicate how important it is to have information-handling skills to create more effective citizens. We must have tools to deal with the local sur-roundings, in order to convince people that to be more productive and better citizens you have to have information. The second part of the structure are the trainers to lead this campaign, and they will be from a national and international organization. This group needs to provide an outline of the knowledge and skills needed to be information specialists and a list of that content. The standard needs to be international, but the content needs to have a local emphasis, because it needs to be related to the user and it needs to be an outreach program. The third part of the information is to use the basic PQM model management system, to be client oriented. We must provide information services to ensure our client is satisfied. In order to make sure that the client is satisfied, we have to do it on a local level. We can't give some international mandate, which says that if this will work in Puerto Rico, this will work in Africa, or this will work in Mexico as well. It doesn't happen in that way. But to manage the situation, facilitate the user's needs, and deal with the volume of information that is available, from the outreach missionary to a part of college training program, is important. We took an interesting sideline to the topic of client server by comparing the library information revolution to the MIS model to the client server.

We then moved to barriers. We got on real well on barriers, I have to tell you. We started with language and culture and the need to work together, because a lack of common language creates fragmentation and becomes a common barrier. The second barrier we came up with was literacy. It is a huge barrier if one can-not read the information one gets; whether it comes from network or print, it would not be of much good. It was pointed out that 30% of the U.S. population is functionally illiterate, so we had to talk about what that means.

Then we discussed the value barrier, where information is power. We had some debate about whether information is power everywhere: for everyone from the medicine man to a professor -- when one holds the information, one holds the power. This is not unique to any particular state or age or particular area.

Then we talked about the cost of information. Take journals as example. It costs to buy journals, and also to ship them. Sometimes it costs more to ship journals to a country, such as Russia as much as the cost of the journals them-selves.

We then talked about the communication area -- cultural communication and language that changes locally. For instance, the words that we might use in northern U.S. might not be the same as it would be used in the south. We use a terminology in China which may not be appropriate in the U.S.

Another barrier is the quantity and complexity of information -- too much or too rich or too complex; and it is easy to get lost in the process of trying to retrieve and use it. So we need to find ways to make it simpler and user friendly to retrieve information. There needs to have some kind of infiltration of the information ocean, or distillation for each country. It needs to be locally applied. The next problem was to find ways to allow people to be able to acquire the needed information and and synthesize the use of it. We should not put control on the huge amount of information; rather, let people decide how to do that at the use end, not the supply end, and following that, they should have freedom to choose the needed information and to use them to meet their local need. In addition to access of information, we need to guide the use of information. For instance, when I worked in NASA 20 years ago, there was a brand new NASA RECON information system. I searched that system and find resources for the researcher, and I gave him a nice big pile of computer print outs from the abstracts and indexes. He was a Ph.D. in America. He looked at the stack and said: "What do I do with that?" So, when we give someone data and informaiton, we need to give him/her an idea of how information can be used.

Education in the use of information and awareness of the information infra-structure are important. We need to pay attention to the process of knowledge transfer.

The next barrier we came up with was the complexity of libraries. They are very intimidating, particularly university libraries. But if the university libraries are intimidating to some, the local library is going to be very intimidating to others. So we need to make user interface a little less complex.

The next barrier was implementation. The level of analysis of much of the data is at the national level not the local level. What meets the national need does not necessarily meets the local needs?

We then talked about the role of the librarian. There are two kinds of needs: the guardian type -- the gatekeeper, archivist, historical organizer, indexer, conservator, and the navigator of the information highway for the library user. The latter is possibly more dynamic. It is the server role -- the server for the location of the information -- looking at the customer, the client. If you notice in those words, client and server are both customer directed, they are not directed to the computer nor should they be directed to the library. In both cases it is to the user. I think we also agreed that the depository of knowledge or the library should always have the capability to contribute to the political system. We also talked about how difficult it is for the single practitioner, whether he/she is a doctor or a librarian or in another profession, to practice alone. We need to provide access to a network and share information. It is real important to keep people fresh, alive, and able to continue to function. We then talked about how the leader is a resource for other people who can learn from the leader in the knowledge transfer process. But if someone only runs the network, he/she is only gatekeeper rather than a netkeeper.

We then talked about technology and content. We need to keep a local content so that everyone including kids can use it. One often has difficulty in differentiating the truth from the advertisement. How can one differentiate knowledge or truth from propaganda? This remind me a sign saying "the truth shall make them free" at the John Hopkins University as well as at the entrance to the CIA of the United States. If one can continue to learn, then one will have a better or more enriched life.
 
 
 

10____________________

BRAINSTORM SESSION AND GROUP DISCUSSIONS

DISCUSSION REPORT: GROUP 2

Reported by: Forest Woody Horton, Jr.

Group No. 2 will present the summary of our discussion in the following areas:

1. ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL

We have several people from developing countries in our group. I think one of the particularly serious problems that we have been talking about in our group is the increasing gap between the various countries and their societies, which is sort of exacerbated by the increasing weight of information in that gap. Developing countries certainly have the essential need for information that is produced outside of their countries, but they also have the need for information which they themselves produce. And a real serious problem is the absence of a viable private sector in many such countries, which is capable of producing the kind of information products and services which are seen in more developed countries. So, there is too much one-way traffic, with resources coming from the outside going into those countries. But if the GII idea is going to be really successful, we need to have a more viable private sector internally within those developing countries that cannot only produce those needed goods and services, but help educate and train people on how to use them and so forth. There is also, in addition to this point of a viable internal private sector, the need in both developed and develop-ing countries for a more intensive collaboration between the public and private sectors as we approach the GII. Another way to put that is we need to infuse the values of one sector with the other, so that they both understand and acknow-ledge, or at least respect if not accept, what the values of the other sector are. We think that is the key to an effective partnership that marries the role of the public and private sectors -- putting them together on a mutual respect basis that capitlizes on the values of both public and private sectors -- instead of talking at each other or over each other as has been too often the case in public-private controversies in the past. Another point that we discussed in this context is the wide disparity in the quantity and quality of library and information holdings between individual countries. In some cases, we simply need to augment in a very basic way those basic holdings. Never mind the question of more sophisticated finding aids or services, they just simply don't have the basic collections to start with. So what that means I think is that we can't afford to assume that the GII is just a case of improving accessibility. There has to be more sources; there has to be greater availability of basic information that is either externally acquired or internally produced or both. And then, finally, in this first context, there is the idea of whether there is a "political threat" angle. Are we going to empower citizens, and is that a threat to a government and to a country? What is the influence there? And I think to be fair our group felt "yes," that in a political sense the concept of individual empowerment through knowledge, which after all is an objective which may have been hidden or dealt with implicitly, is now squarely in front of us. We ought to prepare to address that debate in a constructive way and influence it, so that we don't, like the totalitarian or other kinds of regimes, try to misuse and abuse the opportunity of a GII and NII as simply another way to propagandize and to abuse the information-access channels to meet political and personal agendas. So that was the other angle.

2. AGENCIES FOR TRANSITION

Since we have Don in our group, clearly we need a strategic plan! Of course, he did not overly influence our group; there was a spontaneous feeling. The ques-tion is: What should go into this plan? What should the format be? How should it be constructed? And so forth. We agreed that we need to begin in a traditional way within a country with a national plan; and then move up to a regional plan, and then to an international plan. It is no good starting from an international plan, and then go down and say that this is the way it has to be everywhere. That is nonsense. Our group particularly stressed that the regional approach was a particularly good one, because there are such wide disparities in the character, and the nature of the information problems such as between different geographic regions and so forth. The problem then is taking into account the idea of these disparities, which also brought to mind that each country, has unique strengths and distinctive competencies reflected in its knowledge collections as well as in its information skills. If you think about that, it really means that we ought to develop an inventory (not just a bibliography in a traditional library sense). We really do need an information inventory that pinpoints the unique and distinctive strengths and competencies of the different countries and the difference regions. What it comes down to is what we call knowledge of information. Already that is being done in a number of areas. It was suggested that the Pacific neighbor-hood consortium is a possible good model that we ought to look at. There were several meetings in 1994 in Hong Kong. There will be another one next year, I think in Bangkok. We might look at these consortiums as models that have the objective of pinpointing unique and distinctive strengths and competencies of collections, core services, and core skills of information professionals and entre-preneurs.

Who are the players that are the funding agencies? Well, we need the whole gamut -- a plurality. We can't throw all of our GII eggs into one funding basket. We must approach the foundations based on their traditional areas of support. In the last few days we had discussions centered around Melons and Fords and Carnegies and what areas they have been particular strong in and so forth, so we need to approach them. We certainly need to rely on the traditional UN agencies -- UNDP and UNESCO. It was also pointed out in this context that we shouldn't overly stress the role of the national libraries. In some countries it may make sense to lean on the national library as the prime or the strongest focal area for support, as the key prayer of the GII, but in another case that could be a univer-sity library or some other kinds of institutions. So we need to be careful that we don't fall into the trap of assuming that just because a country has a national library, that it necessarily has to be the prima facie or strongest key central player. Whatever that key institution is, it has to be some internal coordinating mechanism for preparing the strategic plan. That has to be agreed upon at the country level, and then hopefully at the regional and international levels. So again we are coming back to the planning aspect here. After we talk about the agencies for financing, that is where planning first comes in. It is long-range planning, short-range planning, and the translation of plans into budgets and into programs. That is the front end, and that is what we are. We are at the front end of this whole process.

3. THE MEANS FOR IMPLEMENTATION

I am not quite sure where in this conversation it came out, but we came to the conclusion that it might be a good idea to develop a primer that could be used at the country level and the institutional level to guide the key policymakers and decision makers who will have either an anointed role if you will, or an appointed role for some key element of the GII. The primer would set forth guiding princi-ples. We have not seen such documents so far. And now I have to put on my other hat as Vice President of FID. I think I might well be able to talk FID into supporting the development of a primer that would set forth these guiding princi-ples that could be used by policymakers and decision makers at the country level in developing their own NIIs, and also participating as a player in the develop-ment of a regional and a global information infrastructure. The primer would give us a concrete, useful practical product that could come from this group with, of course, the appropriate recognition. That's one thing.

Another idea is that we agreed we certainly need to intensify basic training programs. I saw a little cartoon in one of our American newspapers the other day, which shows a picture of a little boy who is sitting at his computer, and he was calling his mother. He said: "You know I want to start driving on the infor-mation superhighway, but I can't find the on ramp." So the emphasis here is on basic training. We already have, indeed, a great deal of education and training going on. But we are still falling woefully short in just the fundamentals and basics. We need to somehow intensify the workshops and the training that is going on, to reach out to an even broader audience. In that context, Ching-chih, I am looking squarely at you! Somebody thought what a wonderful idea it would be to have a virtual conference. Maybe at NIT '95 or '96, not too far off, as an experiential way of reaching out in training that would get into more than just the hardware, but would also get into the information literacy and other areas which we don't think are very well done, unfortunately by vendors and others who are concentrating more on the packaging and conduit side. So we respectfully suggest that you consider the possibility of one or more virtual conferences as a way to expand and enlarge the potential audience for NII/GII training and to really maximize a much greater audience. I can see you are smiling; it is probably more than a three-ring circus! It is probably a thirty-ring circus. But it is doable, using the technologies. So, anyway, please give it a little bit of thought.

A few more bullets! We are finding dissatisfaction on the part of a lot of users who, absent this basic training, are getting turned off, right away. They just don't want to use the machines; they don't know how. And there is a risk. Never mind the brain drain. It is happening at a basic level, with people who are fearful to go down to the computer store to buy a PC to get on the superhighway, because they just don't have that basic level of training. We need to simplify the user interface to the GII on ramps. That is a fancy way of saying that there are educational services available, like Prodigy and others, for a certain level of users. But that doesn't go quite far enough, really. That doesn't get too far into basic training.

And finally, information literacy, which we fully agreed should get into how to use information, not just how to find it, and how to organize it, but how to use it effectively. One of our members gave an excellent example -- suppose you are going to travel between two points, you need to have a map or else you are going to drive all over the place. Well, that may sound like ABC to us. But just be aware of the fact that just as a map can be a useful tool, information tools can help to solve information problems. That analogy, that metaphor, can be extend-ed infinitely when you start thinking about how the information superhighway can help people, not just to meet their enlightening or edifying information needs, but their coping needs. They are coping with day-to-day challenges, their jobs and their work, their health, their family, and so forth. So as we approach the information literacy challenge (I'm trying to summarize at this point), there needs to be more attention to the curriculum, to courses which emphasize in a very practical way how information tools can help solve the basic coping needs of the individual.

4. BARRIERS AND THE LIKE

The first group just reported that we have no shortage of bullets on this list. Here we again reinforce the need for some kind of primer, a kind of checklist. Don't forget this barrier, and don't forget that barrier; don't forget the other barrier. It is really a checklist which lends itself to this need admirably. These include technical barriers, standards, formats, legal barriers, copyright, privacy confiden-tiality barriers, personal, business, health, safety, security, and so forth. There is no shortage of them. These, we think, could be neatly organized into a series of checklists that can be included in such a primer. And what would help, the word comes to mind, is leverage. Such a primer could help leverage the influence of the key players in the LIS community and demonstrate to their clienteles, to their constituencies, that they know what they are talking about, that they do have something substantive to say. Language has already been discussed. I am not sure if we have more to add to this. Maybe it is a generation problem. The older versus the younger. The situation will hopefully improve as we all get older, except me!

5. THE ROLE OF LIBRARIES

By the way, we said that we hope to not just talk about libraries as institu-tions in societies; we are also talking about librarians, and we are also talking about information professionals. So whatever the caption for that next phase, keep it generic. We should extend it to those categories, too. We talk about gatekeepers. We need to shift the emphasis here now. In view of the electronic revolution, we also need to talk about access. Because there is an apparent con-tradiction, let's face it. While you may argue at one point that the gatekeeper is necessary to keep out the riff raff, on the other side, you have to be very careful when you talk about gatekeepers, that you are not sort of giving an image of somebody who is standing there at the gates only letting certain information pass by, because you are talking about censorship very quickly. So that is a very, very tricky concept. We should be able to use it technically, but in public documents and PR documents we ought to more careful. Rather, we ought to emphasize that the new group of librarians are counselors, information entrepreneurs, and facilitators. These seem to be more modern, more appropriate, terms that try to explain where things stand now. And there is nothing wrong with that. What's wrong with a little marketing hype if that's what it takes to communicate and get customers in the door. We agree that books are going to be with us, because they are the asset. However, serials will increasingly be digitalized, which comes back to the investment expense issue all over again, which underscores all these issues in an economic context, not just in a technical way. Under this heading we talked about the special role and need for directories. We are fearful that if the commercial interests look at all of these issues just on a value-added commercial basis, we may completely overlook the need for these finding aids. Here the LIS has a critical role to play, and that may indeed need to be subsidized. That's where we may need to stand and approach the funding sources and the government and say, "look at what's just thrown into a value-added, commercial kind of context, and you are never going to get the quality and the quantity of directories and aids which are needed to find our way around the information highway."

We also talked about the library's role as an access point. We thought that the virtual library is a key to the future. We ought to think about redefining the libraries in the face of competition from everybody who thinks that just because they have an outlet in the wall for the telephone, and one right next to it for the electrical cord, they automatically become an access on-ramp to the information superhighway! There is more to it than just plugging two cords into the wall. That is again where the library should stress that they are the guardians of the contents. They not only have two plugs in the wall, but they know what to do with those two plugs in the wall. And we have to educate ourselves in this regard as librarians. We have to ensure that the information profession, through education and training, maintains and further develops our own knowledge and expertise in order to keep up with the changes in the environment. So it is not just the education and training of user audiences, but also the education and training of ourselves to make sure we are uptodate. The question is: What kind of special training is needed to make sure that the library and information profes-sion itself does not fall behind?

6. IT AND IC

In thinking about this issue, we came back to a very fundamental point, that is, the societal improvements require a deeper and more widespread understanding of how to find and use information properly. Universal literacy, life-long learning, and education are three key areas. Instead of just polarizing into the conduit and content debate, we have to go back to the root causes. And I think that will enhance our credibility (I use the term stand tall to enhance our credibility). We need to go back to the basics in this regard, instead of simply making a bold-faced, unqualified assertion saying, hey, don't forget the content in the rush to the conduit. It is too easy to say that. You need to go back. You need to step back and start from that point. That isn't the main point itself, nor is it is going to make the case. That is why these two things should be taken together.

The second point is: let's not forget we are indeed the guardians of cultural heritage. That is a very, very important point not to be overlooked. It is also an ace in our hands. The other player does not hold that card. The third point is "pointers." I think we talked quite a lot about that. I mentioned the directory a while ago. And finally, there is universal availability. Well, again like Marge, I think I would be happy to try to reduce my notes so that you might put them all together. Some of the points are merely "observations," while others are not too actionable. But, anyway, these will, I hope, give you a flavor.
 
 

10____________________

BRAINSTORM SESSION AND GROUP DISCUSSIONS

DISCUSSION REPORT: GROUP 3

Reported by: Wendy White

It seems as though our working group had the philosophers because we started from a completely different point of view than the other groups. We started by asking what we would want the GII to look like, and, if we could shape it in our own way, what would be our guiding principles and our definition? We discussed many different models but basically came down to identifying the essential elements of the GII that make it exciting. We asked ourselves what is in this new day and age that makes it different from what we might have proposed in other times. What are the new opportunities offered by the GII that make this the time to revisit plans for increased international cooperation and information sharing through networks?

We decided that the excitement surrounding the GII is that it empowers peo-ple. People are the critical element as they become not only consumers but producers of information. The GII gives people the means necessary to form communities and to communicate with them in whole new ways. This led us to state our first principle, which is that the goal of the GII should be to improve the quality of the life of every person.

Much of the talk surrounding the GII is concerned with communicating "any-time, anywhere." We want to add the words "any person" to that slogan. The anytime, anywhere goal is essentially technology oriented; the any person goal is what is needed to assure equitable access to the GII. The GII can be used to help meet basic human needs and can also help people set and achieve their own goals. By opening up new worlds -- beyond those that are defined by geography or social and economic conditions -- the GII gives each person the power to seek the information needed to make decisions affecting his or her life

Our group stated some other goals:

We have tried not to make a judgment of what the GII should look like but, rather, to create a structure under which the very specific ideas of the other work-ing groups will fit. Each person has to look at each subsystem to see what barriers and opportunities for participation there are.

[Herbert Achleitner]

I think that our notion was to let each country or each region decide on its own.

[Robert Hayes]

I think that the critical element is that we did not want to write a recipe; rather, we thought each country and society should develop its own system, according to its own needs. If these individual networks follow the basic principles outline above, then they can become part of the larger network.

[David Penniman]

One of the things we debated was a conflict between wanting to impose our own model to other countries and organizations or letting them design their own. We think we have come up with a great model that recognizes certain key principles but leaves the actual development and contact in the hands of the people who will use each network. Other groups have stated that they are the guardians of content and cultural heritage, but how would we react if someone else from another culture got up to say that he or she was the guardian of our content and cultural heritage? The NII can't be made to fit other cultures; other cultures must find a way to participate in ways that make sense to them. This is what our group was struggling with and why we decided to be more philosophical.

[Diane Tebbetts]

I would like to add that the "what" we came up with tried to incorporate the information that some people said they would like to take back to their countries. In other words, we did not want to impose our American infrastructure on them. This is not a U.S. document; it is a global one. It is a general document. The implementation of it must proceeed on a local, regional, or national basis. That was to some extent our basis for going back and trying to generalize a little bit.

[Marjorie Hlava]

You are not modest in what you are saying. You are about to empower the whole world, and to me there is a large cognitive leap between providing informtion to people and empowering. To me, empower is a very tricky word, and there are a lot of social and political things that go into that word. I hope the GII would be a little bit more modest in its concept. The word empower has the implication of the law, the hammer.

[Woody Horton]

I would hope that just because there are obviously some wide differences each country and region will face in terms of expectations of what the GII can do, we are not too reticent in trying to put down how we feel. We are, after all, an expert group. People are supposed to look to expert groups for some guidance. I think we need to be more concrete and specific about putting down how we feel about these things -- taking into account, with the appropriate caveats, that the interpretations, the tailoring, and customization of these various guiding princi-ples clearly needs to be considered. We can put down a checklist, some items that we think should not be overlooked, and try to state them in ways that are not so loaded with politically incorrect terms. I think that there is a happy medium.

[Herbert Achleitner]

I have seen expert opinions at work in developing countries. The expert might design a wonderful, huge project but nothing happens, because it's not under-standable and does not work in the context of the local political and economic situation. I agree with you that we should be giving general direction but that we have to be a little bit careful about being too prescriptive. That always gives countries and states an excuse. When you are very prescriptive, everyone finds fault, and then the project just sits on the shelf. Perhaps we need to find a middle ground. I think that our model suggests a map with many possible, alternative routes to get to the information highway.

[Robert Hayes]

I think that we are going to call a halt, and it's time for lunch.

______________

After lunch, both Bob Hayes and Ching-chih Chen promised that they will analyze the meeting contents and the ideas tossed around during the intensive three-day meeting, and prepare a summary, which the group called "Alexandria Declaration of Principles." The draft of this document will be sent to each parti-cipant for comments. The final copy will be prepared as a document to be widely used.*

Ching-chih Chen thanks the group for their participation and enthusiasm. It was an intensive but most exciting meeting of the minds!