(Following are compiled
numerical reactions from the 742 respondents. Numbers
listed denote the total picking each item as the first
priority, a more detailed breakdown of 1-2-3-4 orders is
available in the full report.)
he hardest to undo are
laws passed in haste to regulate the Internet. The other
three are works in progress where the market forces have
already identified a need.
ccess is the most
important thing, after you have access, anything else
can be solved. Keeping the network open is also
important. Financial operations are useful but not
absolutely necessary. Cyber-terrorism is over-hyped and
can be solved through the existing services. There is
no need for yet another bureaucracy.
ecurity must be the
first tack. Without a secure network, the network
he toughest challenge
will be balancing freedom with security.
would be a good starting place to implement universal
information literacy and to pass along technological
framework - technical
and legal - must come first.
t's important to
get more people on board, making it a number-one
ight now I don't
think a world network would work - can't rate
e desperately need to
discourage hardware or software monoculture and promote
and support open source technologies.
nderstanding that the
dark side of the Internet will continue to dog the
heels of expansion and development, I think we need to
build network capacities and tech knowledge everywhere.
And people should be able to use the Internet as they
want, within established boundaries that protect. As
much as I'd like to see a microcredit system, the
other developments are more important to humankind.
ixing some of the
problems that we have today will be necessary before we
seek to expand the network. A "watchdog"
organization will hinder the growth of the internet.
facilitation of economic activity within a secure
framework are key to the ultimate future of the
needs to be in place before anything else should be
developed and worked on.
"build it and they will come" - we need to
teach people not only how to operate $100 PCs but also
how information can be used to improve their lives.
pen standards rule.
he monoculture will be
the death of us, the death of the system, just as
surely as Monsanto's propagating of sterile seeds
will engineer planetary famine. Those with foresight
will make it a top priority, because without it,
nothing else can exist. The open environment is crucial
and must be accessible, just as surely as FDR's
Tennessee Valley Authority wired the rural South. Every
city should be wireless, and it should be provided as a
city utility like water and electricity. The growing
power of the telcos to create choke points to regulate
the system has to be broken, or else a parallel shadow
system that is open must be developed, like the black
market that sprang up in the Soviet Union's
oppressive command and control economy. Just because
this so-called "capitalist" system is being
run by corporations doesn't mean it is any less
command-and-control with multi-national corporations in
the drivers' seats. We are living in an age of
corporate neo-fascism, and the time has passed when we
can sit by and let it happen. The last two items
frighten me beyond words, and I'd rather not give
them numbers at all.
etting us all
connected seamlessly and allowing everyone, everywhere
to benefit from the Internet should be everyone's
aking the capabilities
of the Internet more readily available to a greater
number of people would be the first priority. Making it
easy and safe to use would be the next important level.
aking the Internet
more an economic incentive rather than adding
government restrictions would be more beneficial in the
he top priority should
be to experiment with 21st century improvements to
democratic systems. Stock markets collect billions of
votes daily on competing leaders, policies and
decisions. The same needs to be explored as soon as
possible as para-political organizations.
echnology is only
widely adopted if it makes sense to the way of life of
the people involved. The current legal and technical
environment of ICTs is very strongly biased toward the
Western culture. To make it truly global, the
assumptions behind the models of users have to vary
according to the culture of those users. Then there is
a problem of infrastructure to be overcome in the
majority of the world. This would be best addressed by
providing training and incentives to local operatives.
Allowing countries to develop networks that are adapted
to the local needs, and not necessarily those that
would be created by external developers. A microcredit
system is nice, but not urgent, and security against
terrorism is only a factor when there is some external
motivation. Crime prevention is a problem, but one that
depends more on the individual user being educated and
properly equipped than it does on the spending of
he legal environment
is still in its infancy at the local, state, and
country level, let alone international law…
Microcredit or some sort of internationally accepted
monetary system will help flatten the networked
economy. I don't believe a international security
watchdog is possible or useful until a system of law is
accepted across the network.
egal and regulatory
issues, even more so than technical ones, are the most
likely to impede adoption of information technology.
After all, the main reason behind the internet's
growth is its open architecture, which everyone from
Microsoft to an individual developer can leverage.
Ensuring interoperability and adherence to open
standards is critical for a truly global internet.
reedom of expression
is of paramount importance, securing monetary
transactions will build trust in transactions,
protecting it becomes the next priority. By
implementing these tasks you can then afford to connect
those who are currently not online
he legal environment
is very important, and we also must get more people
online. The monetary systems are being developed by
firms, and quite soon we will have several, probably.
e really need to
educate people in a sensitive way first in order for
any other advances to be embraced by the masses.
ccess to networks and
information is just as critical as access to clean
water, health care, and so on. If you don't have a
connected world, the other priorities don't really
overestimates the place of the Internet and computers
in the lives of the vast majority of the world's
he absence of
competition against giants like Google and Microsoft is
a big threat to the network and to the people. It is
the role of these companies to transform themselves
into monopolies. It is the role of the states to
protect competition and interworking.
'd err on the side
of promoting open standards and expanding the network,
rather than government regulation.
t is a waste of time
to play this game, as business and politics will drive
the evolution of the Net.
he free market will
work it out.
he world (and the US)
needs a better infrastructure available to support the
wider acceptance and use of technology. Multiple
platforms must work the same way when interacting with
the internet. There cannot be barriers created by
particular software or hardware platforms.
f this is a supposedly
democratizing agent, then those who currently do not
have access should be granted it.
he Internet is at its
best when it's all about the end user.
know-how with developing countries should be the top
worried about an "international security
watchdog." I would love to see the virtual world
more secure, but I would not like to see a virtual
"Patriot Act." Frankly, I think the politics
of this will keep it from happening by 2020.
here are other issues
that need to be considered that impact the order of
priority and importance.
ybercrime has enabled
the rise of a techno-mafia that will eventually
threaten existing organized crime syndicates. This will
eventually unleash the cyber-equivalent of Pearl Harbor
- an attack that will empty the bank accounts of
millions within hours, triggering mass panic and
hysteria. The government will do nothing as major
financial institutions teeter on the brink of collapse
- all brought on by a flood of packets unleashed from a
single computer. The President will release a video on
the Internet, saying "Who knew that the Internet
was vulnerable to attack"? Everyone will laugh at
him, but it will not make us feel better.
T's? Global secure
micropayments would be higher on my list if you
didn't use the example of funding foreign farms.
I'd like a simple micropayment system to buy an
interesting movie download from Asia. Maybe such a
system is already in development via Visa/Mastercard or
Paypal. But the global "flat world" economy
you've mentioned earlier will need a payment system
for routine business, not just occasional funding.
he question seems to
presume that all four alternatives are desirable. They
are not. (But this respondent does not elaborate.)
et the system develop
t is essential to work
to help those who are disenfranchised to become better
integrated in any and all resource networks.
ealth is important for
trust watchdog outfits. "Who watches the
nternet should be
developed without adding to Microsoft monopoly, or
other similar ones. Local applications and initiatives
need space to thrive.
'd love to
(explain and add to my answer), but I'm doing this
at work, and the elaboration to this question would
take an hour!
he last one (4) seems
like the only one I'd want anything to do with.
umbers 2 and 3 are
unnecessary. Number 4 would be a Bad Thing.
o way on 3 and 4.
void #4 at all costs.
ithout 1 first there
is no need for the rest; the rest supports 1.
experiences of the most vulnerable would be my top
priority. Then comes safety for the rest.
he internet is not a
social-engineering tool. We can deal with the
terrorists, but keep the government out. Don't
trade human rights for security.
he promise of the
internet to be a means of improved human communication
needs to be encouraged at all levels of society. Unless
and until people are allowed to have access to this
incredible tool, the historical record of suspicion and
conflict will continue forever.
he network should be
central to commercial and banking activity, whatever it
takes to support that transformation should proceed.
decentralization, and participation are not just
trends; they are the reality of technological
would leave the
microcredit thing off the list; we can do that now
(except for the US, because our banking system is off
like the idea of
supporting other people in other nations.
rivate networks, such
as banks and maybe even the World Bank, will establish
and operate global microcredit functions.
ince we are already
shopping globally an international monetary unit would
really help. However, given the undervaluation of some
currencies, this could be difficult to implement.
y first is a
no-brainer. It's important that those with little
or poor access be encouraged and helped to get access
(systems, training, support). It's also really key
that technology be used to help offset the evils
technology can be used for (child pornography for
ll of these choices
are only marginally positive. As for "building the
capacity of the network," that's what is being
done now. What will happen is that religious and
political groups will take the knowledge and build
their own segregated network, thus cutting off global
knowledge from their population. As for "creating
a legal and operating environment," legal for who?
The whole world? Impossible. The world is too
segmented. As for "developing... international
security watchdog," again, it would only be
recognized by a few countries, at best. Not possible in
today's political climate. And, as for
"establishing ... monetary microcredit,"
again, it won't be recognized by majority of
countries. Religious and political strongarms will
prevent this from happening, unless they get a cut of
the action. What do we need? Well, an invasion from
outer space might help ... at least until we beat them
(or are beaten). Then things would be back to what
passes as "normal" ... continuous religious
and political strife.
eveloping and arming
an international security watchdog org seems a bit too
Orwellian for my liking! I believe our biggest priority
now should be access and knowledge.
espite fears of
"Big Brother," the rise of terrorism will
result in the developing and "arming" of an
effective international security watchdog organization
to preserve and protect certain ways of life. The
competitive advantage of those nations with the
Internet will encourage us to separate themselves from
the have-nots of the globe. It will not bring us
etter and more
widespread access is the key to the future, but we also
need to find a way to deal with the myriad of legal
issues surrounding copyrights and intellectual property
before we drown in lawsuits. I would say the monetary
system is number 3, but I think there is already enough
ability to conduct business in the appropriate currency
to push that down a little in the priority list.
) Given the current US
congressional discussions over potential "ISP
favoritism," i.e. providing better data throughput
or access to paid partner's content, as well as
various issues of browser interoperability, and the
EEUU issues with Microsoft monopolistic browser/media
player technologies, without this the rest is toast! 2)
Ditto, with the stipulation that it read
"enable" rather than "force." There
would be no eBay without a Paypal equivalent. I can buy
a book from Japan or UK as easily as my own country,
and I do. As access and payments become easier, it
might be just as easy to buy my recycled silk sari yarn
directly from Nepalese weavers rather than through a
retailer, doubtless increasing the producer's
income. 3) With the additional goal of open information
transfer and intellectual freedom. 4) Fraud is an
increasing problem and will need increasing policing
and enforcement. It is tempting to put it higher, but
without the structure to support it, it's not going
to be effective anyway.
ccess is important,
but it is also important that we don't make a deal
with the devil and cede control over the future of the
internet to large corporations in exchange for access.
Access needs to happen under a paradigm of open,
democratic control of the network. Security and
economic growth are important priorities also, but if
we allow the internet to become a privately controlled
network, the internet as we've come to know it will
no longer exist in any meaningful way.
he order should be
4,2,1,3. Number 3 is jurisdictionally unlikely as some
sort of international body that would ever be
universally accepted... it already exists anyway as a
cooperative effort among various national governments.
"Developing and 'arming' an effective
international security watchdog organization" last
because I believe this is counterproductive. Anytime an
individual or group takes it upon itself to decide how
the others shall live/work, trouble surely follows.
Even when the original goal is meant to be helpful, it
can become self-serving and exclusive. The Christian
church comes to mind.
) Leaving the Internet
open will help with greater dissemination of ideas,
continued innovation, and economic competition that
will help keep the costs down. Openness benefits
everyone, especially people in developing countries. 2)
Although access by itself will not ultimately alter a
society, it is only first step to become a player in
the global community. Education, training, and business
skills will also be necessary. Access will be the first
step in a society towards greater fundamental change,
which might be resisted or in the least take at least a
generation or two to occur. 3) Individual investments
on a global scale can really change the dynamics of
global economics. However, this type of change comes
with a lot of political, economic, legislative, etc.,
baggage. The benefits of this change would be difficult
and not immediately apparent. 4) The first question
that comes to mind is who will monitor the watchdog
organization? There is too much room there for
corruption, using the organization to push political
agendas, and traipsing over people's rights.
wish one of these
options had been: finding a way for individuals to
reduce the commercialization of public space and the
loss of privacy that is accompanying this. This seems
at war with option one which I chose, but I was
identifying with the last sentence of that choice.
would spend my money
encouraging the development of a global public network
instead of the privately held one we currently are
forced to accept.
hese choices would not
be my top priority. I would 1) ensure continued
innovation as the keystone to continued global
benefits; 2) ensure Internet users have basic freedoms
to connect any device, access any information, or use
any software over the Internet; and 3) spur telecom
competition as a way of driving down broadband prices,
and increasing consumer choices.
umber 4 suggests that
the Internet is only about commerce, and if that is the
case, what would be offered online that people who earn
$100 a year could afford? Although 3 is ideal, I doubt
it would be effective. Number 2 is also something of a
problem because "technical ability" may not
have anything to do with the reasons why people
don't use the Internet. So the item I ranked first
is the only one in the list that I think should be
e may not know the
answers, but people from other cultures may have ideas
that could contribute to the other three elements.
Furthermore, they would not be left behind.
ndertaking any of
these things will take vigorous work at the grassroots
level. Therefore building capacity is most critical.
Enabling the flow of funds is also hugely important
because of the impact of small money movements and the
importance of ... what's it called when people send
money home to their home countries? This should be easy
apacity building has
to come first if we are to move from today's
fragmented divided access to universal access and use.
Establishing monetary and legal operating environments
are the next steps. Although I marked the development
and "arming" of an effective security
watchdog organization 4th, that's not where I'd
spend effort. We have no models of effective
organizations of this sort and because I don't
think that our current nation-state organizations will
be transformed by then, I cannot envision that within
less than 15 years we can build an organization that
everyone (or anyone) could trust.
microcredit system seems too idealistic in our current
global economy. There would need to be major economic
change before any such thing could hope to be
he highest two
priorities are guaranteeing anonymity, and scanning the
world's documents on line, particularly the older
documents being rotted away in people's private
collections. The third highest priority is backing up
the internet so that stuff does not disappear the next
n the hierarchy of
needs, I put security over connectivity, then follow
with software utilization over unification of monetary
actually believe that
only number 1 is important. I would have put 4 in the
other three choices.
y establishing a
"monetary microcredit system" first you
enforce change and increase the population in
developing countries. This is in my opinion an
excellent starting point for new markets. That is why I
put "opacity of network..." on second place.
"Creating a legal and operating environment"
would be my third choice as I see that it takes the
most time to succeed. By prioritizing the other tasks
we strive for a faster success. I put "an
international security watchdog organization" in
fourth place, as I think everybody is responsible for
their own behavior on the internet. Though there should
be checks on illegal behavior on the internet it is my
opinion that you cannot secure everything. People
should start learning that you cannot prevent bad
things from happening.
"microcredit" thing sure is out of left
field. Did you mean to say "micropayment"?
Enabling easy commerce between anyone and anyone will
produce FAR, FAR more benefit than enabling easy tiny
loans to developing countries.
umber one is far more
important than the other three. Computers are not the
only solution to the world's economic problems.
mmm. 1234 is the
obvious order - some bias here.
"uild it and they
will come" (Field of Dreams).
believe in general
technology is good and everyone should have access to
it. The rest, not so sure about any of them. Regarding
security, if the Internet becomes too dangerous, then
having everyone with the opportunity to be online is
irrelevant because no one will use it except the bad
f I could, I'd
drop my 4th-ranked priority to, oh, about 10th. I'm
concerned about the free-speech/expression implications
of an "international security watchdog
question if the last
two of these priorities should really be priorities at
am not sure that
these are even the right four statements - in fact
I'm sure they aren't - wouldn't even put 3
and 4 on the list
international security watchdog? Who are you kidding?
gave "arming an
effective international security watchdog organization
a zero/0 because it is a 0. Start with improving how
national entities cooperate, and then cross network
with each other. Creating an international
"watchdog organization" is a threat to
privacy, and unfortunately, doesn't address the
concerns you started with." So, no. Nada... give
me a break.
etting people online
and having them do what they want is more important now
then safeguarding everything. That will happen more if
there are too many "accidents." Information
wants to be free, other services will be paid for, but
a new international monetary microcredit system will
not help (and I don't believe we will ever see one
that most people will agree on).
believe my #1 is the
sine qua non for all the others.
aying attention to
security is underrated in many people's minds. For
me, it is a serious issue as it is the one issue most
likely to undermine the continued globalization of
infrastructure and its use.
universal infrastructure standards" is another
word for monoculture. So second item is politically
correct but paradoxical.
here are only 3
pillars for development: Health; Education;
Infrastructure. This is the role of governments the
rest is the role of the civil society.
ithout popularity, it
is meaningless to do other things. When the network is
secure, monetary activities can be implemented easily.
ow is the time to
start developing the security measures. If we pack the
functionality before thinking through the security, it
will take longer than 14 years to work through all of
the bugs to make it secure enough to be effective. The
others flow in a natural order.
he global network
needs to be available to as many people as possible
before we can even think about the other three options.
What good is a system that possibly might need to be
restructured after other are brought online. Seems like
putting the cart before the horse - you don't
develop systems and regulations for something that is
not close to being finished.
he free market will
determine what gets developed where. If people want to
protect personal info, use the software they want or
share knowledge with the less fortunate, they should do
so themselves, it may not be government or business
appropriate to develop. The more people blog, contact
companies & governments with opinions and make
decisions in their life in line with their ideals, they
will affect things in the way they feel is progressive
and right. People's privacy may be at risk, but
public opinion will monitor and respond in a way that
meets the needs of the majority of people. I am also
excited about the internet technology working in two
directions to deliver real-time info on everything you
need in your daily life and allow you to have two-way
communication with all of it, making us less couch
potatoes, and more participants in the world.