John, thanks for your insights. Your last point struck a chord with us
when you said:
"In is on this line of reasoning that I think that the Morino
strategy should centrally include a public communication and lobbying
component that magnifies the voices of the poor and enables them to say
what they trust, what they do not, and why."
In our internal group discussion this morning we discussed including in
the report's framework of actions, the need for those in low-income
communities to have a stronger voice with respect to public policy,
program definition, etc., as it relates to technology (and least for this
discussion). As the Children's Defense Fund once established a significant
voice and presence with elected officials, public policy makers, and
foundations with respect to the child advocacy, is there not an analog
with respect to the needs of those in low-income communities as it relates
to public policy and programs related to technology.
From our view, the interests of low-income communities are not well
represented in the in the lobbying and influencing that operates behind
the scenes of government process. Clearly, with respect to policies
surrounding technology access, deployment and investment for low-income
communities, there are champions of this cause in the form of certain
elected and appointed officials. But, these figures are not supported by a
strong organization or voice that the policy makers turn to, as is true in
other areas. This appeared to be the case in the telcom reform activity
and certainly appears to be the case for scores of pending
technology-related legislation in federal and state legislatures, from
invasion of privacy caused by product marketing data bases to intellectual
property legislation.
What is the take of others in the online discussion?
Thanks,
Mario
