Sujata: summary too lenghty
Luxman: Since audience is EU needs to have language on ICT uplifting “masses” and “rural” access.
Malathy: Process element of regulation is not there?
Rohan: Study was originally for investor study and language taken from WTO language leaving out the independence of regulator. Process question will be in another study comparing different sectors.
Malathy: why cant process be built into current study?
Rohan: More questions you put in the response rate is poor.
Luxman: If performance indicator isnt ok, then need to know what is going wrong with regulator..
Rohan: If sector is doing well, why should I care if regulator isnt answering letters on time?
Sujata: Perception could be added for evaluating process regulator?
Amal: When respondents received questionnaire they thought it was too long. And deadlines keep slipping
Rohan: Add process oriented evaluation for regulation in the proposal, good suggestion
Chanuka: Who will be user for benchmark data?
Rohan: Providers, government, policymakers can use this data
Divakar: Will the data be useful to civil society?
Rohan: it allows people to organise protests if the prices in SL is highest in the region.
Suajata: Will it allow real-time access to data?
Divakar: Yes it would allow.
Sujata: in NSF project only when someone enters complete data can they be able to access others data and where they rank in relation with others
Rohan: Access to data will be restricted to data providers and subset and extracts will be avilable to public
Ayesha/Luxman: Investors, farmers associations (:) can make use of this data
Rohan: Sophisticated mathematical models have been developed that allow countries of different sizes to be made comparable
May be that may need to be put in proposal. Based on size SL may be comparable with Nepal, but not Bangladesh, India and Pakistan.
Luxman: The heart and soul is missing from the proposal. Important to link it to SL local priorities
Amal: Maybe we can choose small countries outside South Asia to have comparable data for SL
Rohan: Suggestions?
Cacaphony: Maldives, Ghana, Mauritius…
Rohan: in telecom not possible to compare data from provincial data from Kerala to SL cause data isnt collected for provincial data
Rohan: USA only country with state data
Amal: In Australia does collect provincial data for electricity sector
Rohan – ghana is absolute comparison for SL
—
RS: data for peer countries will be a (positive ) indirect benefit of the project
RS:possibility of workshop after press conference?
LS: Civil society groups shouldn’t attend workshop. they won’t understand how to use data optimally in policy process
RS: we will budget for workshop after conference. Chanuka’s cost of basket for internet costs.
Chanuka: 3 service providers, cost factors (electricity, tax, telecom, computer, etc) analysed for different scenarios.
RS: data standards issues: OECD has standard way of calculating baskets. we may have to calculate ‘small country basket’ and ‘large country basket’. country data collectors 1st meeting will be asked to draw up DRAFT data standards, for discussion conference. start with EU standards and modify as needed.
Sujata: activities and objectives do not match (as Luxman said before)
Amal: what will TRE sample be like? random?
RS: not random. focus group.
DG: we will publish reports and disseminate to govt agencies, reg. agencies, regional NRAs, hold media conference, take out ads in sri lankan newspapers, etc., bench mark data to draw attention. Plus hold workshop.
Sujata/sabina: it should be a training workshop.
RS: interested parties can submit reasons for wanting to attend.
DG: harsha suggested- asking about opinions on regulatory agencies in one other countries (of respondent’s choice)
RS: perhaps may give more real perceptions; but maybe we don’t want too much information.
LS: depends on who we’re asking the questions to.
RS: not an issue. the people we are asking should be capable of answering.
Amal: in 2004 SL case study, many didn’t know much about neighbouring countries
DG: issue is perception, not depth of information
LS: india is a key player. we cannot compare apples and oranges.
RS/LS: some countries will not recognise that other countries are perhaps better than them
DG: in other countries, can add one overall/general question: what do you think of the TRE in SL?
RS: or, ask them to rank the group of countries in order of which they think is best-worst
Amal: cannot callibrate
Pradeep: each country will have its own way of measuring/scale
RS: no country will ever give top score to any one.
DG: benchmarking SL to USA, for eg, is not useful
Amal: Investors will have a better answer for this question (they will be looking at all the countries and comparing them) – this is also useful to investors themselves
RS: good idea
Pradeep: internal perceptions will be diluted, to attract more investment/ look better
Amal: to calibrate, you can also ask them how the country compares to last year; then compare his answer this year to last year.
RS: janaki kurruppu had suggestions for better labeling of responses to questions (1-excellent, 2- very good, etc).
LS: (1)change language to show that the end result will benefit the larger audience -(disadvantaged groups, rural develoment, etc). (2) relate to and supplement national or Govt development strategy. Ideally filling a gap which I think the project falls within, if properly designed. (3) proposal should say that it should be taking to the policy level : What next – policy dialogue, clarifying, defining, drawing policy lessons from the data.
Sujata: insert terminology ‘data suppliers’ for clarity
Ayesha: the blogging is live, so may be incoherent at times! [edited]