|
|
 |
|
|
| Expert Meeting in Visby, Sweden - September 1999 |
- Report by Prof. Stewart Asquith, 9/27/99
Further Discussion of the initiative to develop a regional IT Network with regard to Children at Risk, 27-29 September 1999
The House for Children at Risk in the Baltic Sea Region
Expert Meeting in Visby Sweden
Further Discussion of the initiative to develop
a regional IT Network with regard to Children at Risk
27th-29th September 1999
Report
by Prof. Stewart Asquith
Background to the meeting.
At the meeting of the Heads of Governments in Riga in January 1998, it was decided that a more intensive regional co-operation on commercial sexual exploitation of children should be arranged in the Baltic Sea Region. In September 1998, Sweden, Norway and Estonia as the host arranged the Tallinn conference on Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children in the Baltic Sea Region. At the Tallinn conference support was given for regional co-operation on the issue but arguments were also given for a broader mandate to include children at risk in the regional co-operation.
(a report on the conference is available).
In January 1999, the Swedish Special Group for Children at Risk in the Baltic Sea Region was established by Mrs. Maj -Inger Klingvall, the then Swedish Minister for Social Security and Children. The Group has together with Norway since 17th March 1999, when the Stockholm Ministerial Meeting on Children at Risk gave its mandate, been working on a proposal to use information technology to develop the existing regional co-operation regarding children at risk.
The proposed IT project is intended to supplement the already existing CBSS web page with an intranet facility which makes it possible to
(i) transfer larger quantity of information- for example for teleconferences and distant teaching
(ii) exchange information, consult and give guidance between the authorities, researchers, organisations, experts etc. within a secure system.
The advantages with the IT project are that it would raise the level of knowledge about how to prevent, protect and rehabilitate children at risk in the region. It would play an important role in minimising the costs and prevent the duplication of work e.g. between different NGOs and governments. It is also important to acknowledge the fact that the IT project could realise the first international co-operation of this kind and from that perspective probably contribute to raise awareness for activities within the CBSS framework.
At the meeting of the Heads of Government in Palanga 14-15 June 1999, strong support for the proposed IT project was given. The project was also given support from the CBSS of Senior Officials meeting in Reykjavik in May 1999 and several countries within the region.
In addition at the Council of Europe?s family ministers? meeting 14-16 June 1999, Sweden and Norway presented the tentative demonstrator ad many countries including the Council of Europe showed great interest in the project.
Day 1: Introduction, - Bo Henrikson and Bjorn Bredesen
Bo Henriksson identified the two main functions of the IT Network as
Information management in the form of databases; and
Communication between participating countries but also within participating countries.
Additionally, the network should also be capable, he argued, of relating to developments and intiatives in the wider world. Key elements in the IT network would also include the Public, the Mass Media and NGOs and Governments.
In summary, the paper distributed by Bo Henrikson contained a proposed implementation strategy for the network which included a statement of the categories of users; the facilities made available to establish contact and for database use and identifies the facilities for
the public( using the database/attending ''open'' teleconferences;)
(ii) for the media- using the databses and utilising dedicated media service arrangements; and
for non- regional governments and organisations.
The IT network is best described as a building with rooms open only to those with appropriate access authority. Each room will be directed by a special working group responsible for determining the activities carried out and the resources/expertise needed.
Two issues had to be addressed for further development. One was the needs of those who might use and participate in the development of the network. The other was the technical solutions which had to be found to allow for the network to be realised and put into operation in a way that facilitated the kind of communication and information management discussed in the earlier reports. Key decisions had to be made, for example, about the need for a Government room or an NGO room and how these could be achieved within the context of the IT network and the technical possibilities currently available. To facilitate discussion two working groups were established to discuss ''needs'' and ''technical solutions '' respectively.
Report of the ''Needs'' working Group.
Carl Goran Svedin reported on the discussions in the ''Needs'' group and which had focussed on exploring a number of questions.
Who was the network for?- the network could be used for
children to produce a book on the rights of children;
for training given the need for more education which could be taken place both across borders and within countries; and
for policymakers and experts who may have an interest in legislative statement; resources available; competence centres available; NGO activities etc.
How can the network best be started?- some concern was expressed in the working group about the difficulties which might be faced in establishing the network involving countries who might be at different stages of readiness in terms of both the knowledge available and of course, just as importantly of the hardware available. The problem was not just an ''international'' one in terms of establishing a cross border network but was also a '' national'' one where resource availability, levels of expertise and geographical profile would influence the possibility of and indeed the extent to which, a country might become involved and truly participate.
Report of the ''Technical Solutions'' Working Group
The Finnish Rapporteur for the ''Technical Solutions'' Working group identified three themes which were adressed in the discussion
Type of network
Architecture of the Network
Nature of the data to be held in the network.
Type of network- it was important, he argued, that the right language should be employed. Though the discussion thus far had referred to an ''internet'' approach, what was in fact being discussed was more of an ''extranet '' approach.
Architecture of the Network - clear decisions had to be made about what form the architecture of the network should take. In particular, making reference to the EHTO example discussed at the Technet Baltica Telemedicine conference, the location of the server to be deployed and its relationship to national language sites had to be discussed more fully. Whether the network was to operate with one language or to accommodate the use of a number of languages, particularly in national sites had to be addressed at some time in the development of the network.
Nature of the data to be held on the network.-
The issue of what data was to be held on the network was of course closely related to the extent to which the network should be ''secure''. What was clear from the discussion is that it was felt that there was no need for a costly secure system to begin with as ''security'' could be developed and enhanced to meet the needs of the growing system/network. If any data were to be client sensitive then there were regulations- including EU directives- which would have to be complied with, particularly where there was an issue of consent involved. A group would need to be established to discuss the legal and technical questions.
There was general agreement though- and this was discussed more fully in the plenary session- that the network would in all probability not be involved in holding or transferring client sensitive data though there may be some data- still to be clarified- which would have to be made secure to some degree.
After the presentations by the Working Group Rapporteurs, Mr Hans Svensson, Chair for the plenary session suggested that there were two main tasks for the open discussion which was to follow- to find a way in which the possibilities could be realised and to identify what next steps had to be taken.
Open Discussion
A number of themes underpinned the general discussion on the implementation of the network. Firstly, there was general agreement that none of the technical issues identified were problematic from a technical point of view- that is, the network could be readily built. However, some clarity had to be given to the aims and objectives of the network prior to the technical development of it. There was nothing envisaged for the system which could not be realised currently available technology.
Secondly, as stated in the outline paper presented by Bo Henrikson, special working groups would be established to develop specific aspects of the network- to decide on future progress and how to achieve it.
Thirdly, as stated by the Lithuanian delegates, in order to convince Prime Ministers of the merit of the network, a draft of the project should be prepared with a clear idea of the costs involved.
Fourthly, as discussed by the Russian delegates, recognition had to be given to the fact that countries were at different stages of development and that, quite apart from the difficulties of international co-operation and participation in the network, within countries it was clear that there are different levels of technological resources and materials available. Similarly, some form of education or training may have to be given to those who may be involved in using the system. Those countries which are further ahead in such developments could provide assistance to those further behind. Also, the priorities in terms of what areas of ''children at risk'' would be the focus would have to be clarified within countries.
In terms of the Russian comments, our Estonian colleagues agreed that there were different stages of development but that the introduction of the network could be based on some countries joining later in its development when they were more ''ready'' and able to do so.
Fifthly, as suggested by the German delegate, the network as it develops, should forge links with already existing centres of competence and relevant agencies.
Sixth, a mailling list should be established to keep all informed of relevant developments.
Finally, there should be some form of Steering Committee to take forward the idea of the network into an implementation phase and that one of the first tasks of the Steering Committee would be to develop a teleconference illustrating the purpose and nature of the network. The teleconference would be held at the meeting of CBSS Ministers in April 2000. Sweden and Norway would take a lead responsibility for the next steps and in particular for establishing and working through the Steering Committee. Amongst the responsibilities of the Steering Committee would be
arranging the teleconference
preparing a fuller home page/website and to identify the key components.
establishing special working groups
agreeing the implementation timetable as outlined in Bo Hentrikson?s paper
establishing a budget and fiscal framework
purchase the necessary hardware
appoint a system administrator.
Day 2- Demonstration of the Network
A demonstration of an online consultation was shown to the meeting. In addition to the actual online link, the capability of the software used also for consideration of the ''whiteboard'' facility and the transfer of files and images during the online consultation. Telemedica also explained the secure nature of the email system and how this would operate. A number of significant points were made in reaction to the demonstration.
First, it was pointed out that, though some of the discussion surrounding the demonstration was of a high technical nature, the system as demonstrated- both the email and online consultation- were in fact very simple to use.
Second, the technology and software used for the system was also currently available on and for home based PCs- as it was delivered with most PCs already installed, this meant that there would be no additional costs for end users. Thus, the system would allow for close co-operation between users in participating countries based on already existing software and would not involve high costs- the higher costs of the server hardware and system administrator would be borne elsewhere. Thus expertise, information and knowledge would be made available with little outlay required by those participating.
Third, in terms of input of data to the system, the Working Groups established for each room will have responsibility for developing templates and processes for information transfer.
Fourth, the system would operate with different categories of ''user'' who would have access only to those parts of the network for which they were licensed or certified with the lowest access level available being ''public'' for anyone concerned.
Fifth, the system would readily accommodate links being made with other agencies and bodies throughout Europe who had similar interests and concerns.
The main conclusions drawn from the discussion of the demonstrator and indeed from the meeting as a whole was that
the project had received considerable support and that it should be developed
there were no technical difficulties in establishing the network.
a Steering Group should be established to take things forward.
a special group on a teleconference to be held at the Ministers? meeting in April 2000 should be established soon.
a working group for the home page should be established.
the public room be developed.
the media room be developed as a priority in the scale of things.
General Comments
A number of general comments were made in the Rapporteur?s closing remarks.
(i) The project was at a critical stage in its development in that it was now at the point where the ideas and discussions had to be translated into a practical working reality. Much had been achieved already in the earlier meetings and in the technical developments of the demonstrator though at the meetings already held there had been different groupings of personnel involved. The establishment of a Steering Committee and the possible realisation in practice of the network itself would now lend a sense of continuity in the personnel involved. This was seen to be important for the future development of the network. Further, this was the first meeting where both technicians and child care experts had met to discuss the prospects for a network based on the deployment of modern information technology in the advancement of children?s lives. It is crucial that the Steering Group- or whatever body would oversee the future activities of the network would be composed of a blend of technicians and child care experts so that the technical developments would meet the needs of the users.
(ii) Though the network was to be developed to meet the needs of ''children at risk'' much of the discussion in earlier meetings and indeed at this meeting was about the commercial sexual exploitation or abuse of children. As noted above, the meeting in Tallinn had emphasised the importance of addressing the needs of the wider group ''children at risk''. A clear statement had to be formulated as to what was the focus of the work of the IT network so that appropriate decisions about the content or processes involved in the realisation of the centre could be made.
(iii) Sight must never be lost of the child. Ultimately, whatever the technological possibilities or design issues, the IT network has to in some way enhance or improve the lives of children. This was clearly recognised in the discussions held in the ''needs'' working group who had gone so far as to suggest that the IT Network should include children more proactively in the IT network. A further suggestion in this respect is that at some time, in order to enhance the lives of children, some space or ''room'' may have to be established for parents so that they too can be involved. Message boards or chat rooms for parents and children could be included whereby experiences might be exchanged and support offered for example.
(iv) The development of the IT network, and this has been emphasised before, can in itself indicate the way in which the web and its use can be a '' positive'' aspect in the lives of children- a counter to the often negative portrayal of the way in which the web and its use can influence the lives of children. Quite apart from the way in which it might assist children, the IT network can itself be an important mechanism in fostering international communication and co-operation in attempts to enhance the lives of children in the Baltic Sea Region.
(v) Care should be taken that there is no attempt made to '' reinvent the wheel.'' That is, the philosophy of the network should be based on the recognition that it is impossible for any one centre or website to hold all information or to do everything. Thus, clarity of purpose is essential in identifying what it is that is distinctive about the services and facilities provided by the IT Network. Similarly, links have to be made with other agencies or bodies who provide related services or those of direct interest to the primary aim of the IT Network- thus the IT Network need not try to hold all information but can nevertheless act as a clearing house to other sources of information and expertise. There is no merit in trying to duplicate what is done, and done well, by others; there is merit though in the IT Network having a distinctive set of aims and objectives.
(vi) No matter how sophisticated and complex the '' background'' technology is ,the system has to be designed in such a way as to allow for easy access and operation by end users. It also, as was discussed earlier, has to deploy and employ hardware and software that is easily and readily available.
(vii) The work of the Special Working Groups has to be closely articulated with the work of the Steering Group and ultimately with the philosophy of the IT Network in order to maintain clarity of purpose and aim.
(viii) Decisions have to be made not just about what areas are to be tackled by the IT Network but also in which order of priority since not all can be tackled from the outset.
(ix) It was clear from the discussions that there was a need to identify just what it was that was to be ''s secret'' or ''secure'' on the network. Similarly, and this is the mirror image of ''security'', decisions have to be made about just what is to constitute and to be made available as, ''public'' data.
(x) The issue of language will have to be addressed not simply about what language/s are to be used in the IT Network but because the issue of language is also importantly related to the very nature of the relationship of participating countries to the IT Network as a whole. That is, it reflects the concern of how to relate national interests to a project which operates at a regional level in the Baltic Sea Region.
The development of the Network has to be flexible enough to accommodate the differential state of readiness of the different countries in question and to allow for some of them to participate at a later stage in its development.
(xii) Finally, the development of the IT Network has to be carefully monitored and evaluated so that future developments can be based on evidence of its operation. There is no doubt that the Network will develop and evolve- it is important that it does so on the basis of factual and systematic evaluation.
In the final analysis, the IT Network is seen as an important initiative for the co-ordination of activities in seeking to address the needs of children at risk in the Baltic Sea Region. There is no doubt that information technology and modern communications will play a greater role in the future in addressing social and other political concerns. The IT Network in the Baltic Sea Region is at the forefront of such usage. and this has been emphasised before.
Further Discussion of the initiative to develop a regional IT Network with regard to Children at Risk, 27-29 September 1999
The House for Children at Risk in the Baltic Sea Region
Expert Meeting in Visby Sweden
Further Discussion of the initiative to develop
a regional IT Network with regard to Children at Risk
27th-29th September 1999
Report
by Prof. Stewart Asquith
Background to the meeting.
At the meeting of the Heads of Governments in Riga in January 1998, it was decided that a more intensive regional co-operation on commercial sexual exploitation of children should be arranged in the Baltic Sea Region. In September 1998, Sweden, Norway and Estonia as the host arranged the Tallinn conference on Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children in the Baltic Sea Region. At the Tallinn conference support was given for regional co-operation on the issue but arguments were also given for a broader mandate to include children at risk in the regional co-operation.
(a report on the conference is available).
In January 1999, the Swedish Special Group for Children at Risk in the Baltic Sea Region was established by Mrs. Maj -Inger Klingvall, the then Swedish Minister for Social Security and Children. The Group has together with Norway since 17th March 1999, when the Stockholm Ministerial Meeting on Children at Risk gave its mandate, been working on a proposal to use information technology to develop the existing regional co-operation regarding children at risk.
The proposed IT project is intended to supplement the already existing CBSS web page with an intranet facility which makes it possible to
(i) transfer larger quantity of information- for example for teleconferences and distant teaching
(ii) exchange information, consult and give guidance between the authorities, researchers, organisations, experts etc. within a secure system.
The advantages with the IT project are that it would raise the level of knowledge about how to prevent, protect and rehabilitate children at risk in the region. It would play an important role in minimising the costs and prevent the duplication of work e.g. between different NGOs and governments. It is also important to acknowledge the fact that the IT project could realise the first international co-operation of this kind and from that perspective probably contribute to raise awareness for activities within the CBSS framework.
At the meeting of the Heads of Government in Palanga 14-15 June 1999, strong support for the proposed IT project was given. The project was also given support from the CBSS of Senior Officials meeting in Reykjavik in May 1999 and several countries within the region.
In addition at the Council of Europe?s family ministers? meeting 14-16 June 1999, Sweden and Norway presented the tentative demonstrator ad many countries including the Council of Europe showed great interest in the project.
Day 1: Introduction, - Bo Henrikson and Bjorn Bredesen
Bo Henriksson identified the two main functions of the IT Network as
Information management in the form of databases; and
Communication between participating countries but also within participating countries.
Additionally, the network should also be capable, he argued, of relating to developments and intiatives in the wider world. Key elements in the IT network would also include the Public, the Mass Media and NGOs and Governments.
In summary, the paper distributed by Bo Henrikson contained a proposed implementation strategy for the network which included a statement of the categories of users; the facilities made available to establish contact and for database use and identifies the facilities for
the public( using the database/attending ''open'' teleconferences;)
(ii) for the media- using the databses and utilising dedicated media service arrangements; and
for non- regional governments and organisations.
The IT network is best described as a building with rooms open only to those with appropriate access authority. Each room will be directed by a special working group responsible for determining the activities carried out and the resources/expertise needed.
Two issues had to be addressed for further development. One was the needs of those who might use and participate in the development of the network. The other was the technical solutions which had to be found to allow for the network to be realised and put into operation in a way that facilitated the kind of communication and information management discussed in the earlier reports. Key decisions had to be made, for example, about the need for a Government room or an NGO room and how these could be achieved within the context of the IT network and the technical possibilities currently available. To facilitate discussion two working groups were established to discuss ''needs'' and ''technical solutions '' respectively.
Report of the ''Needs'' working Group.
Carl Goran Svedin reported on the discussions in the ''Needs'' group and which had focussed on exploring a number of questions.
Who was the network for?- the network could be used for
children to produce a book on the rights of children;
for training given the need for more education which could be taken place both across borders and within countries; and
for policymakers and experts who may have an interest in legislative statement; resources available; competence centres available; NGO activities etc.
How can the network best be started?- some concern was expressed in the working group about the difficulties which might be faced in establishing the network involving countries who might be at different stages of readiness in terms of both the knowledge available and of course, just as importantly of the hardware available. The problem was not just an ''international'' one in terms of establishing a cross border network but was also a '' national'' one where resource availability, levels of expertise and geographical profile would influence the possibility of and indeed the extent to which, a country might become involved and truly participate.
Report of the ''Technical Solutions'' Working Group
The Finnish Rapporteur for the ''Technical Solutions'' Working group identified three themes which were adressed in the discussion
Type of network
Architecture of the Network
Nature of the data to be held in the network.
Type of network- it was important, he argued, that the right language should be employed. Though the discussion thus far had referred to an ''internet'' approach, what was in fact being discussed was more of an ''extranet '' approach.
Architecture of the Network - clear decisions had to be made about what form the architecture of the network should take. In particular, making reference to the EHTO example discussed at the Technet Baltica Telemedicine conference, the location of the server to be deployed and its relationship to national language sites had to be discussed more fully. Whether the network was to operate with one language or to accommodate the use of a number of languages, particularly in national sites had to be addressed at some time in the development of the network.
Nature of the data to be held on the network.-
The issue of what data was to be held on the network was of course closely related to the extent to which the network should be ''secure''. What was clear from the discussion is that it was felt that there was no need for a costly secure system to begin with as ''security'' could be developed and enhanced to meet the needs of the growing system/network. If any data were to be client sensitive then there were regulations- including EU directives- which would have to be complied with, particularly where there was an issue of consent involved. A group would need to be established to discuss the legal and technical questions.
There was general agreement though- and this was discussed more fully in the plenary session- that the network would in all probability not be involved in holding or transferring client sensitive data though there may be some data- still to be clarified- which would have to be made secure to some degree.
After the presentations by the Working Group Rapporteurs, Mr Hans Svensson, Chair for the plenary session suggested that there were two main tasks for the open discussion which was to follow- to find a way in which the possibilities could be realised and to identify what next steps had to be taken.
Open Discussion
A number of themes underpinned the general discussion on the implementation of the network. Firstly, there was general agreement that none of the technical issues identified were problematic from a technical point of view- that is, the network could be readily built. However, some clarity had to be given to the aims and objectives of the network prior to the technical development of it. There was nothing envisaged for the system which could not be realised currently available technology.
Secondly, as stated in the outline paper presented by Bo Henrikson, special working groups would be established to develop specific aspects of the network- to decide on future progress and how to achieve it.
Thirdly, as stated by the Lithuanian delegates, in order to convince Prime Ministers of the merit of the network, a draft of the project should be prepared with a clear idea of the costs involved.
Fourthly, as discussed by the Russian delegates, recognition had to be given to the fact that countries were at different stages of development and that, quite apart from the difficulties of international co-operation and participation in the network, within countries it was clear that there are different levels of technological resources and materials available. Similarly, some form of education or training may have to be given to those who may be involved in using the system. Those countries which are further ahead in such developments could provide assistance to those further behind. Also, the priorities in terms of what areas of ''children at risk'' would be the focus would have to be clarified within countries.
In terms of the Russian comments, our Estonian colleagues agreed that there were different stages of development but that the introduction of the network could be based on some countries joining later in its development when they were more ''ready'' and able to do so.
Fifthly, as suggested by the German delegate, the network as it develops, should forge links with already existing centres of competence and relevant agencies.
Sixth, a mailling list should be established to keep all informed of relevant developments.
Finally, there should be some form of Steering Committee to take forward the idea of the network into an implementation phase and that one of the first tasks of the Steering Committee would be to develop a teleconference illustrating the purpose and nature of the network. The teleconference would be held at the meeting of CBSS Ministers in April 2000. Sweden and Norway would take a lead responsibility for the next steps and in particular fo
| Published by |
|
Sweden, , Seyfert Helena(Sweden) |
| Created |
|
28.02.2001 |
|
|
|
