The G3ict Toolkit within A Policy-Making Framework
Launching presentation and ceremony of the Global Initiative for Inclusive ICTs & International Telecommunication Union Toolkit
Date: 07/05/2009
Venue: Hotel Marillia, Hammamet, Tunisia
Article
The G3ict provides valuable resources for establishing policy frameworks and technical sequences for achieving accessibility but key questions remain about the merits of voluntary and statutory regulation.
The very extent of the Toolkit is a graphic illustration of the complexities of ICT accessibility; but, rather than using the Contents Page sequence, let me start by putting the Toolkit into a policy framework in three steps:
- Establish a legal framework for asserting a general right that is superior to, equal to, or inferior to other rights;
- Determine the instrument for the enjoyment of the right: a standard, regulations or legislation;
- Establish responsibility for the enjoyment of the right.
In parallel with this, we also need a technical sequence:
- Establish user requirements;
- Translate user requirements into technical specifications;
- Produce a working model.
It can readily be seen that there is no logical way of integrating the policy framework and the technical sequence:
- The promulgation of a right may precede a technical implementation;
- A technical solution may precede the promulgation of a right;
- The market may deliver a solution;
- Each party may allocate responsibility to another.
The reason why the World Blind Union (WBU), through the Royal National Institute of Blind People (RNIB), agreed to support the Toolkit from the outset was our recognition of the need for a global set of resources. The usual justification for projects like this is that it saves people "re-inventing the wheel" but we saw it more broadly than this; in public policy terms, we have to:
- Justify the assertion of a 'desirable' right;
- Show that the enjoyment of a right is possible;
- Compute the ratio between cost and social gain.
To undertake this analysis, there are some necessary preconditions:
- Establish a relationship between the right and the methodology enjoyment;
- Ensure that the social gain is actual rather than theoretical;
- Identify frameworks or sequences for success and test these against the current challenge.
As you would expect of a global, multi-faceted phenomenon, such as the Toolkit, there is no simple set of overall conclusions that can be drawn from the available resources, but I think there are some important indicators:
- Almost universal market failure;
- Success of state regulation of broadcasting;
- Political success but implementation failure, not least by legislators, of voluntary industry standard, WAI;
- Success of voluntary DVD accessibility practice;
- Failure to regulate telecommunications.
It seems to me that there are three vital areas for consensus building:
- The nature of a right of access and its relationship to other rights, e.g. authors, shareholders;
- The balance between factors in the commitment to accessibility;
- The responsibility for delivering a legislated objective.
I ought to say a few words of explanation: the assertion of a blanket, theoretical right of accessibility to content without regard to three basic considerations, will fail:
- Mission;
- Cost/Capacity to deliver;
- Social Gain.
Well before this economic down-turn, a trend emerged of Governments extending rights and cutting budgets; the same trend is observable in corporate mission statements and the use of CSR funding. Most of the Third Sector still thinks of Government in terms of highly dirigiste responsibility, largely established for the prosecution of two world wars in the 20th Century. Although this might sound trivial, it is extremely important that the Third Sector stops calling itself that, giving itself a lower ranking than government and business; as we emerge from the down-turn, we might find that the not-for-profit, or social investment sector, is the only part of our society that is trusted, now that business leaders have joined politicians and journalists.
Following on from this, the observant will notice that I have not stipulated:
- The need to achieve common technical standards to create a mass market for accessible ICT goods and services.
I think this is a largely ideological proposition, usually under the shorthand label of ‘The Business Case'.
Assumptions behind The Business Case
- The case for capital allocation is based on demographic aggregation;
- Capital is unlimited.
Politics of The Business Case
- The Third Sector wishes to establish a maximum demographic and shift responsibility;
- Government wishes to cut expenditure and shift responsibility;
- Business asserts the maximisation of shareholder value in competition for limited capital.
The achievement of common global standards would be most helpful for manufacturers who frequently say that they do not want to have to conform with a wide variety of standards; but, by insisting on a single standard, they will almost certainly be able to avoid doing anything at all because most standards for accessibility lag far behind generic product launches; and, by the time there is consensus, the technology and the market have both moved on.
Perhaps another way of looking at our dilemma is to try to work out why:
Why: is:
- Unregulated DVD such a success;
- Intensely legislated web accessibility a modest success;
- Deregulated telecommunications such a failure;
- All accessibility regulation not based on the broadcasting model?
Finally, three challenges:
- In computing, mimic broadcasting and telecommunications by concentrating on server rather than client-side services;
- Use public procurement to specify hardware and software that require little or no training;
- Make digital creativity tools accessible so that disabled people can produce as well as consume.