1."ownership":
1.1 private
individual entreprenur
company
1.2 public
1.2.1 Ministry 1
1.2.1.1 sub-ordinate entity
1.2.2 Ministry 2
--------
1.3 NGO
1.3.1 international
1.3.2 national
1.3.3 local (this is also "national", does it make a diference?)
1.4 social enterprise
1.4.1 trust
1.4.2 society
1.4.3 company
1.5 joint-venture
1.5.1 NGO-Public
1.5.2 Private-NGO (not sure to understand the difference between these two)
1.5.3 Private-public
2. "Business Model"
2.1 For profit
2.1.1 All services are for payment
2.1.2 Some services are free of cost
2.2 Not for profit
2.2.1 with income generating services
2.2.2 without income generating services
3. Location
3.1 urban
3.1.1 market place
3.1.2 growth centre
3.1.3 educational institution
3.1.4 local organisation
3.1.5 branch of a national organisation
3.1.6 local government office
3.2 Rural
3.2.1 market place
3.2.2 growth centre
3.2.3 educational institution
3.2.4 local organisation
3.2.5 branch of a national organisation
3.2.6 local government office
3.3 Population of the location (inhabitants)
3.3.1 < 3000
3.3.2 > 3000 < 20.000
3.3.3 > 20.000 < 50.000
3.3.4 > 50.000
4. Assistance
4.1 All services with infomediary assistance
4.2 All services without infomediary assistance
4.3 Some services with infomediary assistance
5. Servcies
5.1 information services
5.2 communication services
5.3 ancillary services
6. Activities
6.1 educational activities
6.2 camps
7. Kind Venue
7.1 Library
7.2 School
7.3 Community Telecentre
7.4 Public Service
7.5 Cybercafe
7.6 Mobil
7.7 Hotspot
7.8 Other
Comments (2)
George said
at 3:51 pm on Jun 8, 2008
Dear Ananya, thanks for this initiative which I find quite useful in moving on. Generally, it seems to follow the second of the examples shown in Seattle. I must tell you that our colleagues from Lithuania prefered the first example (starting with free o paid access) and that I have received a draft from our Chilean colleagues along the same lines. I encouraged them to post that exchange here so everybody can see and contribute. A couple of more specific comments from me are: 1) I find this very detailed. Can all this info be had from the admin sources that will help populate the database? 2) If yes, more detail is good and I can't be against it. It may mean, however, that we move to a scheme where we all agree on a more basic taxonomy to be used across all countries and then, why not, those who can add more detail are free to go ahead. Thus, interrnational comparability would be based on a higher level, as others may not be able to match that detail.
ehinost said
at 9:43 am on Jun 11, 2008
I added some additional items to this classification. My view is that we should include all aspects we think we need to consider and after that, we can start to cut down the items based on the usefulness of each item, its practicality and possibility of actually getting such information.
You don't have permission to comment on this page.