Today morning we sat together and found that some important taxonomy items are missing from the global taxonomy. Please see below the addition to the existing taxonomy items. We have tried to give justification to each of the addition below of each item.

 

Chile: We added our comments and suggestions below!

Greetings from the Chile team! 

 

 

1. Ownership (Ownership is a legal description for the owner of the facility, not a description the source of operating revenues.  

1.1 Private

1.2 Public (Chile: we suggest to change the name to "Government")

1.3 NGO

1.4 Community owned

1.5 Other (includes joint ventures)

 

We added "community owned" as a new category under the "ownership", because a number of venues ( libraries, telecentres) are owned by the community represented by community based committee and association. They can not be put under other categories. Here, so far we understood "private" means licensed individually or collectively owned venues, which work for profit. If "private" means  owned by "other than government" then, we do not need "community owned" category. Please give your comment.

 

Chile: Although in a small number, we also have this type of Telecenters in Chile. Therefore we agree with this suggestion.

 

2. Location

2.1 Rural (Chile: less than 3 thousand inhabitants)

2.2 Urban (Chile: more than 20 thousand inhabitants)

2.3 Semi-Urban (Chile: more than 3 thousand and less than 20 thousand inhabitants)

 

This item was missing  from the proposed global taxonomy. But we think this is very important taxonomy item, we are in a position to collect data on it. We put 'semi-urban" following the discussion held in Washington.

 

Chile: We suggest to add the estimated number of inhabitants of the location in order to share the same criteria for classification.

 

3. Business Model

3.1 For-profit

3.2 Not-for-profit

 

No comments

Chile: To clarify this: the definition of a Telecenter to be for or not for profit should be based on its legal "inscription", for example: if a private school has a computer lab that is available for the use of parents and others, although they do not charge for the use of the PCs, due that from a legal perspective it is a "private" (for profit) school (institution), it should be classified under 3.1. Please let us know if this is so.

 

4. Fee Structure

4.1 Free

4.2 Paid

4.3 Hybrid (Chile: some of the services are paid, such as: training sessions, print outs, CDs burn, etc.)

 

No comments

Chile: We added the description to clarify the category.

 

4. Venue Type

4.1 Library

4.2 Educational Institution

4.3 Stand-alone Facility (i.e., Telecenter, Cybercafé)

4.4 Shop

4.5 Post office

4.6 Local Government Institution (Chile: it refers to the building, not venues that are owned by Local Government)

4.7 Religious Institution

4.8 Other public access location

 

We have significantly modified this item. "School" was changed to "educational institution", as many of the public access venue are in "college". There are venues in "shops", "religious institutions", "local government institution". Venues  in "post office" are going to be established and by end of August there will be 400 venues in post offices. Although it is mentioned that no need to include 'future venues", we put "post offices" as they are already decided.

 

Chile: We find some of the categories difficult to separate, particularly the difference between 4.3 and 4.4 is not clear for us. 

We added the clarification in 4.6, since if it refers to the venues owned by the local government, we would need to include some schools under this category also, which would confuse the taxonomy.

 

5. Mobility     

5.1 Fixed

5.2 Mobile

 

We also propose to add this item, because mobile libraries are total more than100 ( bus, truck and boat)

 

Chile: we agree

 

6. Service Type

6.1 Information

6.2 Communication

6.3 Education and training

6.4 ICT Based Ancillary Services

6.5 Non ICT Based Ancillary Services

 

"Service type" is also important and data are available for this item. Actually this item is important to distinguish "telecentre" and "cyber cafe"

 

Chile: In our case, we would need to mark all the categories listed here in a significant percentage of the PA points, since many of them provide all these services. Therefore, we think this would not help to classify them.  

 

7. Service delivery Mode      

7.1 With Infomediary

7.2 Without Infomediary 

 

"Service delivery mode" is also important and data are available for this item. Actually this item is important to distinguish "telecentre" and "cyber cafe"

 

Chile: Although we guess there is a difference in the quality of the service provided by the administrator of a Telecenter compared to the service provided by the manager of a Cybercafe, there is no pre made definition of that service, so it would be possible that some managers of Cybercafes define their marketing strategy as to be client-oriented (user). Therefore it would be difficult to identify this without an interview. So we suggest not to use this category.

 

8. Service delivery Channel             

8.1 Offline

8.2 Online

8.3 Both

 

Many ICT based public access venues are without Internet connection. So, it is important to distinguish whther a public access venue provides off-line (CD-ROM) based.

 

Chile: Although there could be some rural schools that provide access to computers to the community and not to Internet (because they are not connected), these are very few cases which are difficult to identify, therefore we would rather not use this classification item (or mark 8.2 to all).

 

9. Size

9.1 Small (5 or less PCs)

9.2 Medium (more than 5 and 10 or less PCs) 

9.3 Large (more than 10 PCs)

 

Chile: We think that this category can be helpful to identify different types of impact and different magnitudes of costs associated.

 

 

- Bangladesh Team